Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0839th
  Defense−0.0698th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%57th
  Defense34.6%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.089th
  Defense+1.1275th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0125th
  Defense−0.0689th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1652nd
  Defense−0.0698th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%39th
  Defense40.1%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.1%79th
  Defense24.4%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6723rd
  Defense2.6869th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%72nd
  Defense19.1%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense3.1%94th

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, 2015

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
   ALA
2. W
   M-OH
3. W
   TROY
4. W
   HAW
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   NEB
7. W
   PUR
8. W
   ILL
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    MD
11. L
    NU
12. W
    MINN
13. W
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2015

1. Joel StaveQB320 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 77th of 205 QBs
   1.28WAR0.73 to 1.82
2. Dare OgunbowaleRB182 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 64th of 333 RBs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.42
3. Bart HoustonQB39 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 177th of 205 QBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
4. Taiwan DealRB68 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 144th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Rafael GaglianonePK21 plays · +0.423 pts/play · 22nd of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Alex EricksonWR112 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 153rd of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.30
7. Corey ClementRB45 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 182nd of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. Robert WheelwrightWR33 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 211th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63663637th of 128Roster talent: 636, 37th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819837th of 128Recruiting: 198, 37th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%70th of 127Returning production: 56%, 70th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.1+15.121st of 128SP+ rating: +15.1, 21st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.20 of the 0.27 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 USCQ4 0:39 4th & 1 at WIS 48, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.7 pts
2. vs IOWAQ4 3:16 4th & 16 at IOWA 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal3.9 pts
3. at NEBQ3 4:03 4th & 1 at WIS 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.3 pts
4. at NEBQ4 6:17 4th & 2 at NEB 24, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
5. vs IOWAQ4 14:05 4th & 8 at IOWA 33, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal2.1 pts
6. vs USCQ4 6:51 4th & 9 at USC 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
7. at MINNQ4 4:46 4th & 6 at MINN 33, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
8. at MDQ3 10:28 4th & 4 at WIS 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

46th 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

   ALA
2. W

   M-OH
3. W

   TROY
4. W

   HAW
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   NEB
7. W

   PUR
8. W

   ILL
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    MD
11. L

    NU
12. W

    MINN
13. W

    USC

What moved it, 2015

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+1.08
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.64

Game by game

• ALAL 17-35 vs ALA23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• M-OHW 58-0 vs M-OH97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• TROYW 28-3 vs TROY98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• HAWW 28-0 vs HAW96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IOWAL 6-10 vs IOWA74% → 6%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• NEBW 23-21 at NEB47% → 93%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• PURW 24-7 vs PUR91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Clock −1
• ILLW 24-13 at ILL67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• RUTGW 48-10 vs RUTG90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MDW 31-24 at MD83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• NUL 7-13 vs NU78% → 6%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• MINNW 31-21 at MINN59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• USCW 23-21 vs USC36% → 95%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3

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.