UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1668th
  Defense+0.2015th
• 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.
  Offense46.5%78th
  Defense46.5%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1732nd
  Defense+1.2341st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense+0.1228th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1748th
  Defense+0.3015th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%91st
  Defense50.3%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%29th
  Defense38.1%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3992nd
  Defense2.9936th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%84th
  Defense20.0%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense15.5%38th

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, 2018

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. W
   SELA
2. W
   USM
3. L
   TA&M
4. L
   TROY
5. L
   GAST
6. L
   MISS
7. W
   CCU
8. W
   TXST
9. W
   GASO
10. W
    USA
11. L
    ARST
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2018

1. Caleb EvansQB372 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 28th of 225 QBs
   1.93WAR1.32 to 2.54
2. Derrick GoreRB101 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 217th of 351 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.27
3. Marcus GreenWR77 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 72nd of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.28
4. R.J. TurnerWR39 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 165th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
5. Craig FordPK8 plays · +0.375 pts/play · 96th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.07
6. Markis McCrayWR39 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 330th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Josh PedersonTE17 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 67th of 204 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
8. Sloan SpillerFB12 plays · +0.051 pts/play · 294th of 351 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  327327122nd of 130Roster talent: 327, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114115th of 130Recruiting: 114, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%25th of 129Returning production: 81%, 25th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.9−10.9105th of 130SP+ rating: −10.9, 105th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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. at USMQ4 1:38 4th & 4 at USM 39, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.9 pts
2. vs SELAQ2 1:52 4th & 2 at ULM 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at ARSTQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at ULM 29, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at CCUQ2 0:50 4th & 3 at CCU 3, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs SELAQ4 8:23 4th & 6 at SELA 28, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at CCUQ4 12:58 4th & 3 at ULM 36, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TA&MQ2 10:17 4th & 1 at ULM 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at USAQ1 6:06 4th & 9 at USA 29, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

44th 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. W

   SELA
2. W

   USM
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   TROY
5. L

   GAST
6. L

   MISS
7. W

   CCU
8. W

   TXST
9. W

   GASO
10. W

    USA
11. L

    ARST
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2018

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+0.44
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• SELAW 34-31 vs SELA92% → 72%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −20: Scoreboard +8, Possession & field position −2
• USMW 21-20 at USM36% → 93%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• TA&ML 10-48 at TA&M4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TROYL 27-35 vs TROY43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• GASTL 14-46 at GAST68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts −1
• MISSL 21-70 at MISS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• CCUW 45-20 at CCU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts +1
• TXSTW 20-14 vs TXST79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• GASOW 44-25 vs GASO32% → 100%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +56, Clock −2
• USAW 38-10 at USA71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• ARSTL 17-31 at ARST27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• ULL 28-31 vs UL54% → 17%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4

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.