UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.037th
  Defense+0.1721st
• 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.
  Offense35.4%3rd
  Defense45.6%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2961st
  Defense+1.2555th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0635th
  Defense+0.0463rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.042nd
  Defense+0.471st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.7%14th
  Defense48.6%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.6%1st
  Defense39.1%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1455th
  Defense3.0260th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.1%79th
  Defense19.4%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%17th
  Defense15.1%26th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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

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

Players, 2023

1. Jiya WrightQB194 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 134th of 250 QBs
   0.45WAR0.02 to 0.92
2. Tyrone HowellWR34 plays · +0.376 pts/play · 43rd of 457 WRs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
3. Hunter SmithRB72 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 166th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Isaiah WoullardRB77 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 207th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Braxton GuilbeauP42 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 35th of 103 punters
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Nolan QuinlanTE11 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 144th of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Blake MurphyQB93 plays · +0.019 pts/play · 231st of 250 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.16 to 0.23
8. Dash LukeWR14 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 378th of 457 WRs
   0.01WAR−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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  336336124th of 130Roster talent: 336, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9696123rd of 130Recruiting: 96, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%105th of 128Returning production: 31%, 105th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.6−21.6127th of 130SP+ rating: −21.6, 127th 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, 2023

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 0.12 of the 0.17 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 ARSTQ4 11:08 4th & 1 at ULM 38, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at TXSTQ4 14:58 4th & 2 at TXST 5, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs APPQ4 1:02 4th & 3 at ULM 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs ARSTQ2 5:27 4th & 2 at ARST 2, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at TXSTQ2 1:15 4th & 1 at TXST 48, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs ARSTQ4 13:45 4th & 2 at ULM 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ARSTQ4 6:57 4th & 17 at ARST 38, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at GASOQ4 0:49 4th & 20 at ULM 22, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

91st of 133 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

   ARMY
2. W

   LAM
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   APP
5. L

   USA
6. L

   TXST
7. L

   GASO
8. L

   ARST
9. L

   USM
10. L

    TROY
11. L

    MISS
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2023

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−1.47
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.97

Game by game

• ARMYW 17-13 vs ARMY25% → 90%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +4
• LAMW 24-14 vs LAM94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11
• TA&ML 3-47 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• APPL 40-41 vs APP14% → 5%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• USAL 7-55 vs USA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 20-21 at TXST9% → 20%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +11: Scoreboard −6, Timeouts −3
• GASOL 28-38 at GASO11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16
• ARSTL 24-34 vs ARST49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• USML 7-24 at USM33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34
• TROYL 14-45 vs TROY6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MISSL 3-35 at MISS1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ULL 21-52 at UL14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17

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.