UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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.
  Offense0.005th
  Defense+0.1734th
• 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.
  Offense32.8%2nd
  Defense45.5%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3785th
  Defense+1.2557th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.044th
  Defense+0.0569th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0612th
  Defense+0.2926th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense35.7%1st
  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.
  Offense28.2%19th
  Defense30.5%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.441st
  Defense3.2625th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.6%2nd
  Defense14.4%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%15th
  Defense14.2%17th

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, 2021

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
   UK
2. W
   JKST
3. W
   TROY
4. L
   CCU
5. L
   GAST
6. W
   LIB
7. W
   USA
8. L
   APP
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    ARST
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2021

1. Chandler RogersQB232 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 95th of 219 QBs
   0.92WAR0.43 to 1.34
2. Malik JacksonRB69 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 173rd of 387 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.33
3. Andrew HenryRB92 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 183rd of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. Rhett RodriguezQB93 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 175th of 219 QBs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.38
5. Boogie KnightWR26 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 242nd of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Jared SparksWR20 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 345th of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08
7. Devyn McCormickP39 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 77th of 101 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.13
8. Calum SutherlandPK12 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 88th of 128 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  312312122nd of 130Roster talent: 312, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124119th of 130Recruiting: 124, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%21st of 128Returning production: 91%, 21st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.3−20.3124th of 130SP+ rating: −20.3, 124th 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, 2021

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.16 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 TXSTQ4 1:36 4th & 5 at ULM 30, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
2. vs LIBQ4 1:44 4th & 6 at LIB 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at TXSTQ4 2:42 4th & 10 at ULM 40, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
4. vs ARSTQ3 5:00 4th & 2 at ARST 15, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at TXSTQ4 0:17 4th & 4 at ULM 44, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
6. vs TROYQ2 7:43 4th & 2 at TROY 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs JKSTQ2 0:03 4th & 5 at JKST 34, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs USAQ4 6:28 4th & 4 at USA 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

20th 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

   UK
2. W

   JKST
3. W

   TROY
4. L

   CCU
5. L

   GAST
6. W

   LIB
7. W

   USA
8. L

   APP
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    ARST
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2021

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+0.53
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.57

Game by game

• UKL 10-45 at UK4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −5
• JKSTW 12-7 vs JKST61% → 79%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +2
• TROYW 29-16 vs TROY7% → 98%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position −3
• CCUL 6-59 at CCU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• GASTL 21-55 vs GAST14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• LIBW 31-28 vs LIB3% → 81%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +2
• USAW 41-31 vs USA20% → 97%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position +2
• APPL 28-59 at APP5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TXSTL 19-27 at TXST47% → 70%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +29, Clock +4
• ARSTL 24-27 vs ARST61% → 24%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• LSUL 14-27 at LSU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• ULL 16-21 at UL9% → 5%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −4: 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.