Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1253rd
  Defense−0.0696th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%61st
  Defense38.9%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1119th
  Defense+1.0894th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0437th
  Defense−0.1197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2779th
  Defense−0.0191st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%50th
  Defense44.1%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%75th
  Defense29.3%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6715th
  Defense2.5583rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%39th
  Defense21.6%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%91st
  Defense19.5%87th

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, 2016

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. W
   LSU
2. W
   AKR
3. W
   GAST
4. W
   MSU
5. L
   MICH
6. L
   OSU
7. W
   IOWA
8. W
   NEB
9. W
   NU
10. W
    ILL
11. W
    PUR
12. W
    MINN
13. L
    PSU
14. W
    WMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2016

1. Bart HoustonQB151 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 109th of 218 QBs
   0.68WAR0.43 to 0.94
2. Alex HornibrookQB176 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 124th of 218 QBs
   0.55WAR0.31 to 0.82
3. Corey ClementRB275 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 41st of 347 RBs
   0.55WAR0.29 to 0.80
4. Dare OgunbowaleRB104 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 144th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.35
5. Jazz PeavyWR91 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 59th of 417 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.32
6. Robert WheelwrightWR47 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 135th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
7. Bradrick ShawRB44 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 225th of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
8. Andrew EndicottPK16 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 88th of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464437th of 128Roster talent: 644, 37th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919935th of 128Recruiting: 199, 35th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%120th of 128Returning production: 30%, 120th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.1+16.116th of 128SP+ rating: +16.1, 16th 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, 2016

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 0.13 of the 0.23 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 NEBQ4 1:43 4th & 2 at NEB 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at PSUQ3 0:16 4th & 3 at PSU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at MICHQ4 12:54 4th & 10 at MICH 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
4. at IOWAQ3 3:04 4th & 3 at IOWA 34, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs MINNQ3 3:49 4th & 2 at WIS 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MICHQ3 1:25 4th & 3 at WIS 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at MICHQ4 6:01 4th & 3 at WIS 32, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs NEBQ2 6:53 4th & 2 at NEB 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

5th 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. W

   LSU
2. W

   AKR
3. W

   GAST
4. W

   MSU
5. L

   MICH
6. L

   OSU
7. W

   IOWA
8. W

   NEB
9. W

   NU
10. W

    ILL
11. W

    PUR
12. W

    MINN
13. L

    PSU
14. W

    WMU

What moved it, 2016

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+2.20
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.32
• Timeouts−0.28
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• LSUW 16-14 vs LSU19% → 95%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• AKRW 54-10 vs AKR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• GASTW 23-17 vs GAST97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 30-6 at MSU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2
• MICHL 7-14 at MICH21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• OSUL 23-30 vs OSU24% → 23%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −16
• IOWAW 17-9 at IOWA53% → 97%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• NEBW 23-17 vs NEB63% → 89%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −16
• NUW 21-7 at NU65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• ILLW 48-3 vs ILL95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• PURW 49-20 at PUR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• MINNW 31-17 vs MINN79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• PSUL 31-38 at PSU48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• WMUW 24-16 vs WMU64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2

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.