UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0632nd
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense39.1%22nd
  Defense44.9%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3175th
  Defense+1.3224th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0331st
  Defense+0.1320th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1632nd
  Defense+0.2727th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%34th
  Defense50.4%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.
  Offense26.9%18th
  Defense33.6%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0545th
  Defense3.0746th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%62nd
  Defense19.1%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%29th
  Defense14.3%23rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   TEX
2. W
   NICH
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   UL
5. L
   ARST
6. L
   CCU
7. L
   USA
8. L
   ARMY
9. W
   TXST
10. W
    GAST
11. L
    TROY
12. L
    USM

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

Players, 2022

1. Chandler RogersQB204 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 103rd of 234 QBs
   0.70WAR0.34 to 1.12
2. Chandler RogersQB106 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 141st of 234 QBs
   0.37WAR0.18 to 0.59
3. Malik JacksonRB108 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 130th of 384 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
4. Tyrone HowellWR36 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 86th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
5. Andrew HenryRB63 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 205th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Calum SutherlandPK10 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 71st of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
7. Boogie KnightWR15 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 331st of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Zach RasmussenTE9 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 135th of 214 TEs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  349349119th of 129Roster talent: 349, 119th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107124th of 129Recruiting: 107, 124th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%15th of 128Returning production: 82%, 15th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.7−15.7115th of 129SP+ rating: −15.7, 115th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.26 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 TXSTQ4 5:14 4th & 1 at ULM 19, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.6 pts
2. vs NICHQ4 6:58 4th & 1 at ULM 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. vs NICHQ4 6:58 4th & 1 at ULM 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
4. vs ULQ4 13:21 4th & 1 at ULM 15, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs CCUQ2 4:10 4th & 3 at CCU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at GASTQ3 9:19 4th & 4 at ULM 49, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs USMQ2 5:00 4th & 3 at ULM 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs ULQ2 1:00 4th & 3 at UL 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

47th of 131 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

   TEX
2. W

   NICH
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   UL
5. L

   ARST
6. L

   CCU
7. L

   USA
8. L

   ARMY
9. W

   TXST
10. W

    GAST
11. L

    TROY
12. L

    USM

What moved it, 2022

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−1.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.06

Game by game

• TEXL 10-52 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NICHW 35-7 vs NICH66% → 22%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +3
• ALAL 7-63 at ALA0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• ULW 21-17 vs UL28% → 87%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• ARSTL 28-45 at ARST31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• CCUL 21-28 vs CCU18% → 11%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• USAL 34-41 at USA13% → 8%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• ARMYL 24-48 at ARMY36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• TXSTW 31-30 vs TXST60% → 93%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 31-28 at GAST16% → 94%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• TROYL 16-34 at TROY17% → 2%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• USML 10-20 vs USM37% → 4%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3

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.