UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1973rd
  Defense+0.2018th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%57th
  Defense47.1%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2774th
  Defense+1.2626th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2395th
  Defense+0.199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1640th
  Defense+0.2235th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%59th
  Defense51.7%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%63rd
  Defense36.3%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3693rd
  Defense3.2212th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%84th
  Defense18.2%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%93rd
  Defense16.1%8th

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, 2019

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
   GRAM
2. L
   FSU
3. L
   ISU
4. W
   USA
5. L
   MEM
6. W
   TXST
7. L
   APP
8. L
   ARST
9. W
   GAST
10. L
    GASO
11. W
    CCU
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2019

1. Caleb EvansQB427 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 12th of 228 QBs
   2.13WAR1.43 to 2.87
2. Josh JohnsonRB192 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 28th of 349 RBs
   0.65WAR0.48 to 0.81
3. Austin VaughnRB37 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 243rd of 349 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.15
4. Zach JacksonWR39 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 216th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
5. Josh PedersonTE50 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 10th of 207 TEs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
6. Markis McCrayWR61 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 228th of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
7. Jonathan HodohWR46 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 280th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Jared PorterP46 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 42nd of 100 punters
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  346346117th of 130Roster talent: 346, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114118th of 130Recruiting: 114, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%60th of 130Returning production: 64%, 60th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.7−10.7109th of 130SP+ rating: −10.7, 109th 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, 2019

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.08 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 MEMQ4 11:32 4th & 8 at MEM 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
2. vs ARSTQ2 0:24 4th & 6 at ARST 30, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at GASOQ2 9:00 4th & 5 at GASO 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at TXSTQ2 2:46 4th & 2 at ULM 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at TXSTQ3 8:22 4th & 3 at ULM 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TXSTQ3 0:02 4th & 2 at ULM 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at TXSTQ3 12:58 4th & 12 at TXST 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ARSTQ1 3:16 4th & 3 at ULM 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

65th 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

   GRAM
2. L

   FSU
3. L

   ISU
4. W

   USA
5. L

   MEM
6. W

   TXST
7. L

   APP
8. L

   ARST
9. W

   GAST
10. L

    GASO
11. W

    CCU
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2019

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−0.20
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• GRAMW 31-9 vs GRAM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• FSUL 44-45 at FSU7% → 34%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +27: Timeouts +12, Clock −11
• ISUL 20-72 at ISU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• USAW 30-17 vs USA85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• MEML 33-52 vs MEM14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23
• TXSTW 24-14 at TXST62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• APPL 7-52 at APP14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ARSTL 41-48 vs ARST50% → 6%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• GASTW 45-31 vs GAST41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• GASOL 29-51 at GASO33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• CCUW 45-42 vs CCU66% → 90%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• ULL 30-31 at UL9% → 6%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1

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.