UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0113th
  Defense+0.1528th
• 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.
  Offense36.5%8th
  Defense40.9%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4196th
  Defense+1.3610th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0024th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1444th
  Defense+0.2624th
• 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
  Defense44.9%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.1%16th
  Defense31.9%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7018th
  Defense2.8359th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.6%4th
  Defense17.5%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.5%1st
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SFPA
2. L
   ALA
3. W
   UTEP
4. W
   ARST
5. L
   NU
6. L
   CCU
7. L
   TROY
8. L
   USM
9. L
   ODU
10. L
    USA
11. L
    TXST
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2025

1. Aidan ArmentaQB220 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 131st of 231 QBs
   0.50WAR0.03 to 1.01
2. Zach Palmer-SmithRB87 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 139th of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
3. Bam McReynoldsRB104 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Nic TrujilloWR35 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 111th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
5. Jonathan BibbsWR43 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 223rd of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.17
6. Julian NixonTE16 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 85th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
7. Jake GodfreyWR20 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 338th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
8. Dorian LewisRB9 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 331st of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  473473124th of 134Roster talent: 473, 124th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9797126th of 134Recruiting: 97, 126th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%23rd of 132Returning production: 59%, 23rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.6−21.6129th of 134SP+ rating: −21.6, 129th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 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 TROYQ3 9:40 4th & 11 at TROY 12, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
2. at ULQ2 4:34 4th & 17 at UL 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
3. at UTEPQ4 2:32 4th & 5 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at CCUQ4 2:31 4th & 10 at CCU 16, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at CCUQ4 2:31 4th & 10 at CCU 16, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UTEPQ4 8:35 4th & 5 at UTEP 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs USAQ2 1:53 4th & 7 at USA 29, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at UTEPQ4 1:13 4th & 4 at UTEP 24, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

102nd of 136 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

   SFPA
2. L

   ALA
3. W

   UTEP
4. W

   ARST
5. L

   NU
6. L

   CCU
7. L

   TROY
8. L

   USM
9. L

   ODU
10. L

    USA
11. L

    TXST
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2025

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−1.29
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts−0.19
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• SFPAW 29-0 vs SFPA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ALAL 0-73 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• UTEPW 31-25 at UTEP31% → 97%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ARSTW 28-16 vs ARST51% → 70%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −42
• NUL 7-42 at NU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +4
• CCUL 8-23 at CCU58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• TROYL 14-37 vs TROY38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• USML 21-49 at USM20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −22
• ODUL 6-31 vs ODU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21
• USAL 14-26 vs USA42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• TXSTL 14-31 at TXST10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position +1
• ULL 27-30 at UL24% → 22%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +19

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.