Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1667th
  Defense−0.0185th
• 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.
  Offense52.0%98th
  Defense41.8%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.022nd
  Defense+1.0693rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2494th
  Defense−0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0419th
  Defense+0.0284th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.4%98th
  Defense48.5%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%78th
  Defense27.4%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.8199th
  Defense2.7569th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.5%98th
  Defense20.3%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%90th
  Defense15.4%34th

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, 2018

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
   WKU
2. W
   UNM
3. L
   BYU
4. W
   IOWA
5. W
   NEB
6. L
   MICH
7. W
   ILL
8. L
   NU
9. W
   RUTG
10. L
    PSU
11. W
    PUR
12. L
    MINN
13. W
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2018

1. Jonathan TaylorRB238 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 8th of 351 RBs
   0.89WAR0.69 to 1.11
2. Alex HornibrookQB145 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 140th of 225 QBs
   0.49WAR0.26 to 0.74
3. Jack CoanQB71 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 190th of 225 QBs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.29
4. Garrett GroshekRB67 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 231st of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Danny Davis IIIWR35 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 167th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. A.J. TaylorWR34 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 171st of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Rafael GaglianonePK14 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 75th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Jake FergusonTE36 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 26th of 204 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65465435th of 130Roster talent: 654, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19519540th of 130Recruiting: 195, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%14th of 129Returning production: 86%, 14th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.5+15.519th of 130SP+ rating: +15.5, 19th of 130 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, 2018

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.19 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. at PURQ4 1:09 4th & 1 at WIS 11, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.3 pts
2. at IOWAQ4 10:29 4th & 3 at IOWA 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.3 pts
3. at IOWAQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at IOWA 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
4. vs MIAQ2 0:26 4th & 17 at MIA 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal1.7 pts
5. at MICHQ3 2:24 4th & 2 at MICH 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
6. at PURQ3 6:27 4th & 3 at PUR 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
7. at PURQ2 10:18 4th & 1 at WIS 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
8. at IOWAQ2 7:03 4th & 2 at IOWA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

111th 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

   WKU
2. W

   UNM
3. L

   BYU
4. W

   IOWA
5. W

   NEB
6. L

   MICH
7. W

   ILL
8. L

   NU
9. W

   RUTG
10. L

    PSU
11. W

    PUR
12. L

    MINN
13. W

    MIA

What moved it, 2018

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−0.40
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.81

Game by game

• WKUW 34-3 vs WKU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• UNMW 45-14 vs UNM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BYUL 21-24 vs BYU94% → 7%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• IOWAW 28-17 at IOWA59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• NEBW 41-24 vs NEB89% → 98%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16
• MICHL 13-38 at MICH25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 49-20 vs ILL94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• NUL 17-31 at NU64% → 2%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• RUTGW 31-17 vs RUTG97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +8
• PSUL 10-22 at PSU30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• PURW 47-44 at PUR40% → 88%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• MINNL 15-37 vs MINN82% → 0%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −67, Clock −4
• MIAW 35-3 vs MIA41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53

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.