UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0830th
  Defense+0.1532nd
• 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.
  Offense37.4%10th
  Defense46.9%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3792nd
  Defense+1.0797th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1363rd
  Defense+0.228th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0111th
  Defense+0.0777th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.5%9th
  Defense53.9%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%22nd
  Defense29.6%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9335th
  Defense3.484th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%53rd
  Defense12.4%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense13.4%12th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   JKST
2. W
   UAB
3. L
   TEX
4. W
   TROY
5. W
   JMU
6. W
   USM
7. L
   USA
8. L
   MRSH
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    AUB
11. L
    ARST
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2024

1. Aidan ArmentaQB174 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 134th of 232 QBs
   0.47WAR0.15 to 0.78
2. Ahmad HardyRB181 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 36th of 373 RBs
   0.46WAR0.32 to 0.60
3. James JonesRB56 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 231st of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
4. Hunter HerringTE14 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 135th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  329329130th of 131Roster talent: 329, 130th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9797124th of 131Recruiting: 97, 124th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  17%17%121st of 130Returning production: 17%, 121st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.7−16.7119th of 131SP+ rating: −16.7, 119th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.11 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 USAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at USA 10, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at TROYQ3 4:07 4th & 2 at TROY 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs USMQ2 1:51 4th & 1 at ULM 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at MRSHQ3 6:28 4th & 7 at MRSH 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs JKSTQ3 1:55 4th & 4 at JKST 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs JMUQ4 3:12 4th & 8 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at ARSTQ3 7:12 4th & 3 at ULM 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at USAQ4 10:23 4th & 7 at USA 7, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

22nd of 134 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

   JKST
2. W

   UAB
3. L

   TEX
4. W

   TROY
5. W

   JMU
6. W

   USM
7. L

   USA
8. L

   MRSH
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    AUB
11. L

    ARST
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2024

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+0.79
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.88

Game by game

• JKSTW 30-14 vs JKST67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• UABW 32-6 vs UAB17% → 100%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +61, Timeouts +4
• TEXL 3-51 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• TROYW 13-9 at TROY32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• JMUW 21-19 vs JMU15% → 96%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• USMW 38-21 vs USM60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −2
• USAL 17-46 at USA28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 23-28 at MRSH23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• TXSTL 17-38 vs TXST24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −3
• AUBL 14-48 at AUB4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• ARSTL 21-28 at ARST34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• ULL 23-37 vs UL24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2

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.