Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2478th
  Defense+0.0587th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%80th
  Defense37.3%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.2050th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3095th
  Defense−0.0184th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1839th
  Defense+0.1474th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%91st
  Defense43.7%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%40th
  Defense25.8%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2586th
  Defense2.5978th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%27th
  Defense21.3%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense1.8%38th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Wisconsin 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
   LSU
2. W
   WIU
3. W
   BGSU
4. W
   USF
5. L
   NU
6. W
   ILL
7. W
   MD
8. W
   RUTG
9. W
   PUR
10. W
    NEB
11. W
    IOWA
12. W
    MINN
13. L
    OSU
14. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2014

1. Melvin GordonRB288 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 2nd of 350 RBs
   0.88WAR0.61 to 1.15
2. Joel StaveQB162 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 127th of 199 QBs
   0.69WAR0.41 to 0.96
3. Corey ClementRB89 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 94th of 350 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.31
4. Rafael GaglianonePK16 plays · +0.423 pts/play · 35th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Tanner McEvoyS42 plays · +0.136 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Alex EricksonWR74 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 242nd of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.20
7. Robert WheelwrightWR2 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 434th of 469 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Derek WattFB2 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Wisconsin'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Wisconsin's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.22 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 AUBQ4 0:56 4th & 5 at AUB 33, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.4 pts
2. at IOWAQ3 11:46 4th & 1 at WIS 47, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at IOWAQ4 13:54 4th & 1 at WIS 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs USFQ3 1:04 4th & 1 at USF 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at LSUQ4 1:26 4th & 12 at WIS 8, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at NUQ4 9:50 4th & 26 at NU 32, down 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. at NUQ2 10:22 4th & 1 at WIS 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at NUQ1 2:30 4th & 1 at WIS 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

33rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Wisconsin's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   LSU
2. W

   WIU
3. W

   BGSU
4. W

   USF
5. L

   NU
6. W

   ILL
7. W

   MD
8. W

   RUTG
9. W

   PUR
10. W

    NEB
11. W

    IOWA
12. W

    MINN
13. L

    OSU
14. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Wisconsin'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+1.16
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.60

Game by game

• LSUL 24-28 at LSU40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −3
• WIUW 37-3 vs WIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BGSUW 68-17 vs BGSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• USFW 27-10 vs USF97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• NUL 14-20 at NU73% → 3%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −46, Possession & field position −1
• ILLW 38-28 vs ILL94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• MDW 52-7 vs MD73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• RUTGW 37-0 at RUTG78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +29
• PURW 34-16 at PUR84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• NEBW 59-24 vs NEB61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39
• IOWAW 26-24 at IOWA70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• MINNW 34-24 vs MINN81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 0-59 at OSU51% → 0%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −47
• AUBW 34-31 vs AUB28% → 87%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −20

Points of win probability, from Wisconsin's side.

Closest call

WIS 47-44 PUR (2018) - Wisconsin dropped to a 5.2% win probability before pulling it out.