UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1775th
  Defense+0.311st
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense45.4%73rd
  Defense48.5%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2574th
  Defense+1.366th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0447th
  Defense+0.243rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3289th
  Defense+0.423rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%79th
  Defense52.5%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%61st
  Defense38.3%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9663rd
  Defense3.287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%79th
  Defense16.8%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense13.8%15th

Percentiles among the 130 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2017

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what UL Monroe allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   MEM
2. L
   USM
3. W
   UL
4. W
   CCU
5. W
   TXST
6. L
   GAST
7. L
   USA
8. L
   IDHO
9. W
   APP
10. L
    AUB
11. L
    ARST
12. L
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UL Monroe.

Players, 2017

1. Caleb EvansQB346 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 34th of 226 QBs
   1.61WAR1.10 to 2.23
2. Derrick GoreRB143 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 130th of 352 RBs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.38
3. Marcus GreenWR67 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 94th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
4. Ben LuckettRB46 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 223rd of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. R.J. TurnerWR36 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Brian WilliamsWR37 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Garrett SmithQB30 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 207th of 226 QBs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
8. Craig FordPK9 plays · +0.363 pts/play · 91st of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares UL Monroe's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  304304115th of 130Roster talent: 304, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106119th of 130Recruiting: 106, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%36th of 128Returning production: 73%, 36th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.9−12.9110th of 128SP+ rating: −12.9, 110th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than UL Monroe's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs ARSTQ2 5:13 4th & 2 at ARST 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at ULQ4 2:02 4th & 1 at ULM 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs USMQ2 3:17 4th & 2 at USM 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at TXSTQ4 4:59 4th & 1 at TXST 4, up 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs GASTQ2 13:17 4th & 1 at ULM 40, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at IDHOQ4 0:21 4th & 9 at IDHO 9, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. at ULQ4 5:20 4th & 1 at ULM 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at USAQ2 3:03 4th & 3 at ULM 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

79th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UL Monroe's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   MEM
2. L

   USM
3. W

   UL
4. W

   CCU
5. W

   TXST
6. L

   GAST
7. L

   USA
8. L

   IDHO
9. W

   APP
10. L

    AUB
11. L

    ARST
12. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2017

Every game starts at UL Monroe's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.82
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• MEML 29-37 at MEM4% → 3%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• USML 17-28 vs USM33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• ULW 56-50 at UL48% → 90%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +18
• CCUW 51-43 vs CCU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position +2
• TXSTW 45-27 at TXST68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• GASTL 37-47 vs GAST62% → 2%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• USAL 23-33 at USA44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position −1
• IDHOL 23-31 at IDHO47% → 3%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• APPW 52-45 vs APP31% → 86%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −3
• AUBL 14-42 at AUB1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• ARSTL 50-67 vs ARST29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• FSUL 10-42 at FSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6

Points of win probability, from UL Monroe's side.

Closest call

LIB 28-31 ULM (2021) - UL Monroe dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.