Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2288th
  Defense−0.0292nd
• 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.
  Offense49.6%91st
  Defense36.7%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1012th
  Defense+1.345th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1271st
  Defense−0.0586th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4093rd
  Defense+0.0289th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.0%94th
  Defense41.4%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%50th
  Defense28.2%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2889th
  Defense2.6280th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%92nd
  Defense23.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%89th
  Defense27.5%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, 2019

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
   USF
2. W
   CMU
3. W
   MICH
4. W
   NU
5. W
   KENT
6. W
   MSU
7. L
   ILL
8. L
   OSU
9. W
   IOWA
10. W
    NEB
11. W
    PUR
12. W
    MINN
13. L
    OSU
14. L
    ORE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2019

1. Jack CoanQB297 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 78th of 228 QBs
   1.03WAR0.48 to 1.58
2. Jonathan TaylorRB272 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 5th of 349 RBs
   1.00WAR0.75 to 1.23
3. Quintez CephusWR66 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 88th of 439 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
4. Garrett GroshekRB57 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 253rd of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
5. Kendric PryorWR39 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Danny Davis IIIWR32 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Jake FergusonTE28 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 54th of 207 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
8. A.J. TaylorWR14 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 379th of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67667633rd of 130Roster talent: 676, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20320335th of 130Recruiting: 203, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%44th of 130Returning production: 71%, 44th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.3+20.311th of 130SP+ rating: +20.3, 11th 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.16 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 OSUQ3 11:56 4th & 15 at WIS 20, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.6 pts
2. at ILLQ4 9:46 4th & 2 at ILL 2, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs OREQ3 11:57 4th & 10 at WIS 41, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
4. vs NUQ3 10:32 4th & 4 at NU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at NEBQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at NEB 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs OREQ4 12:09 4th & 4 at ORE 9, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at MINNQ2 8:56 4th & 3 at MINN 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at NEBQ4 5:25 4th & 3 at NEB 12, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

62nd 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

   USF
2. W

   CMU
3. W

   MICH
4. W

   NU
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   MSU
7. L

   ILL
8. L

   OSU
9. W

   IOWA
10. W

    NEB
11. W

    PUR
12. W

    MINN
13. L

    OSU
14. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2019

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+1.02
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.80

Game by game

• USFW 49-0 at USF77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• CMUW 61-0 vs CMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MICHW 35-14 vs MICH58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• NUW 24-15 vs NU95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 48-0 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MSUW 38-0 vs MSU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• ILLL 23-24 at ILL97% → 6%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −3
• OSUL 7-38 at OSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• IOWAW 24-22 vs IOWA70% → 93%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• NEBW 37-21 at NEB81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• PURW 45-24 vs PUR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• MINNW 38-17 at MINN55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• OSUL 21-34 vs OSU16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +1
• OREL 27-28 vs ORE54% → 8%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −46, Clock −4

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.