UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.066th
  Defense+0.306th
• 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.
  Offense35.3%8th
  Defense48.0%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2652nd
  Defense+1.4010th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.183rd
  Defense+0.2310th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0121st
  Defense+0.431st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.6%9th
  Defense52.2%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.9%11th
  Defense38.5%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.336th
  Defense3.3111th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.5%17th
  Defense15.5%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%14th
  Defense12.7%11th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   ARMY
2. L
   TXST
3. L
   UTEP
4. L
   GASO
5. L
   LIB
6. L
   USA
7. L
   APP
8. L
   GAST
9. L
   UL
10. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2020

1. Colby SuitsQB211 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 69th of 212 QBs
   0.54WAR0.15 to 0.90
2. Josh JohnsonRB94 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 147th of 338 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
3. Jeremy HuntQB47 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 163rd of 212 QBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.17
4. Perry CarterWR18 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 285th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Malik JacksonRB17 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 278th of 338 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
6. Josh PedersonTE19 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 31st of 191 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
7. Jared PorterP17 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 48th of 77 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05
8. Jonathan HodohWR23 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 362nd of 409 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  287287112th of 127Roster talent: 287, 112th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122119th of 127Recruiting: 122, 119th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%106th of 127Returning production: 37%, 106th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.4−18.4121st of 127SP+ rating: −18.4, 121st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.03 of the 0.07 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 UTEPQ2 13:33 4th & 1 at ULM 30, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at LIBQ2 3:56 4th & 12 at ULM 3, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. vs TXSTQ4 1:25 4th & 17 at TXST 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs TXSTQ4 15:00 4th & 8 at TXST 16, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UTEPQ4 5:43 4th & 10 at ULM 25, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at ARSTQ3 4:35 4th & 8 at ARST 10, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at GASTQ2 0:13 4th & 2 at ULM 33, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs TXSTQ4 4:29 4th & 6 at ULM 7, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

123rd of 127 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

   ARMY
2. L

   TXST
3. L

   UTEP
4. L

   GASO
5. L

   LIB
6. L

   USA
7. L

   APP
8. L

   GAST
9. L

   UL
10. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2020

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−2.24
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.68

Game by game

• ARMYL 7-37 at ARMY6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• TXSTL 17-38 vs TXST38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• UTEPL 6-31 vs UTEP77% → 0%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −70
• GASOL 30-35 vs GASO9% → 18%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +2
• LIBL 7-40 at LIB13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• USAL 14-38 at USA16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• APPL 13-31 vs APP4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11
• GASTL 34-52 at GAST12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• ULL 20-70 vs UL3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• ARSTL 15-48 at ARST9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11

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.