Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1364th
  Defense−0.1299th
• 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.
  Offense45.4%74th
  Defense33.9%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1223rd
  Defense+1.1372nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0337th
  Defense0.0069th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3492nd
  Defense−0.2099th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%53rd
  Defense40.5%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.0%93rd
  Defense23.3%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0475th
  Defense2.7663rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%71st
  Defense19.8%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%80th
  Defense23.0%99th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   USU
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   BYU
4. W
   NU
5. W
   NEB
6. W
   PUR
7. W
   MD
8. W
   ILL
9. W
   IU
10. W
    IOWA
11. W
    MICH
12. W
    MINN
13. L
    OSU
14. W
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2017

1. Alex HornibrookQB307 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 62nd of 226 QBs
   1.18WAR0.53 to 1.78
2. Jonathan TaylorRB267 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 9th of 352 RBs
   0.73WAR0.48 to 0.96
3. Bradrick ShawRB72 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 192nd of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.22
4. Rafael GaglianonePK14 plays · +0.573 pts/play · 18th of 110 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Quintez CephusWR35 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 132nd of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
6. A.J. TaylorWR43 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 153rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Danny Davis IIIWR37 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 176th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.13
8. Jazz PeavyWR11 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 395th of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64064037th of 130Roster talent: 640, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819836th of 130Recruiting: 198, 36th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%57th of 128Returning production: 64%, 57th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.8+26.83rd of 128SP+ rating: +26.8, 3rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.20 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 OSUQ4 3:20 4th & 3 at WIS 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.4 pts
2. at IUQ3 9:04 4th & 3 at IU 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs IOWAQ3 7:45 4th & 2 at WIS 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs MICHQ2 10:43 4th & 1 at WIS 12, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs OSUQ2 5:41 4th & 3 at OSU 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs FAUQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at FAU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs NUQ4 1:09 4th & 2 at NU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at NEBQ2 6:32 4th & 3 at NEB 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

13th of 130 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

   USU
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   BYU
4. W

   NU
5. W

   NEB
6. W

   PUR
7. W

   MD
8. W

   ILL
9. W

   IU
10. W

    IOWA
11. W

    MICH
12. W

    MINN
13. L

    OSU
14. W

    MIA

What moved it, 2017

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+2.18
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.70

Game by game

• USUW 59-10 vs USU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• FAUW 31-14 vs FAU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• BYUW 40-6 at BYU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• NUW 33-24 vs NU86% → 96%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• NEBW 38-17 at NEB81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• PURW 17-9 vs PUR87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• MDW 38-13 vs MD93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts −1
• ILLW 24-10 at ILL96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• IUW 45-17 at IU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +29
• IOWAW 38-14 vs IOWA80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24
• MICHW 24-10 vs MICH62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• MINNW 31-0 at MINN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• OSUL 21-27 vs OSU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• MIAW 34-24 at MIA66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +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.