Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0116th
  Defense−0.0999th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%46th
  Defense35.0%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.139th
  Defense+1.2357th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0235th
  Defense−0.2699th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0118th
  Defense+0.0584th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%53rd
  Defense42.9%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%40th
  Defense22.6%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7838th
  Defense2.0999th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%36th
  Defense26.2%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%48th
  Defense18.1%70th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   ILL
2. W
   MICH
3. L
   NU
4. L
   IU
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   MINN
7. W
   WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2020

1. Graham MertzQB201 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 75th of 212 QBs
   0.43WAR0.08 to 0.75
2. Garrett GroshekRB76 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 153rd of 338 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.26
3. Jalen BergerRB44 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 196th of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.19
4. Nakia WatsonRB38 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 233rd of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
5. Jack DunnWR34 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 176th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Jake FergusonTE36 plays · +0.037 pts/play · 38th of 191 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.04 to 0.08
7. Kendric PryorWR9 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 358th of 409 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Mason StokkeFB10 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 292nd of 338 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67667632nd of 127Roster talent: 676, 32nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820832nd of 127Recruiting: 208, 32nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%53rd of 127Returning production: 69%, 53rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.5+26.53rd of 127SP+ rating: +26.5, 3rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.18 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 IUQ4 0:46 4th & 10 at IU 21, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
2. vs WAKEQ3 5:07 4th & 2 at WAKE 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at IOWAQ3 10:41 4th & 2 at IOWA 29, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at IOWAQ4 12:17 4th & 11 at IOWA 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
5. vs WAKEQ3 13:02 4th & 1 at WIS 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs MINNQ3 11:01 4th & 2 at WIS 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at NUQ2 10:16 4th & 3 at NU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at IOWAQ3 8:49 4th & 1 at WIS 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

109th of 127 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

   ILL
2. W

   MICH
3. L

   NU
4. L

   IU
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   MINN
7. W

   WAKE

What moved it, 2020

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−0.70
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.76

Game by game

• ILLW 45-7 vs ILL91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• MICHW 49-11 at MICH69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• NUL 7-17 at NU69% → 4%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• IUL 6-14 vs IU83% → 4%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• IOWAL 7-28 at IOWA57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• MINNW 20-17 vs MINN77% → 62%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −14: Timeouts −21, Clock +13
• WAKEW 42-28 vs WAKE79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25

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.