Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0820th
  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.
  Offense44.6%62nd
  Defense32.9%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.041st
  Defense+1.2653rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1353rd
  Defense−0.1098th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0410th
  Defense−0.0598th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%58th
  Defense36.1%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%59th
  Defense27.8%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1559th
  Defense2.0999th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%74th
  Defense22.1%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%96th
  Defense21.2%98th

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, 2021

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. L
   PSU
2. W
   EMU
3. L
   ND
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   ILL
6. W
   ARMY
7. W
   PUR
8. W
   IOWA
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    NU
11. W
    NEB
12. L
    MINN
13. W
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2021

1. Graham MertzQB274 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 90th of 219 QBs
   1.04WAR0.50 to 1.58
2. Braelon AllenRB160 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 29th of 387 RBs
   0.73WAR0.55 to 0.90
3. Chez MellusiRB164 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 53rd of 387 RBs
   0.56WAR0.42 to 0.70
4. Danny Davis IIIWR39 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
5. Andy VujnovichP41 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 41st of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
6. Kendric PryorWR47 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 209th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Jalen BergerRB23 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 306th of 387 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.09
8. Collin LarshPK20 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 55th of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75175121st of 130Roster talent: 751, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022025th of 130Recruiting: 220, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%56th of 128Returning production: 81%, 56th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.1+20.17th of 130SP+ rating: +20.1, 7th 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, 2021

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 0.07 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. at ASUQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at ASU 17, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs PSUQ3 13:03 4th & 1 at WIS 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs ARMYQ4 4:38 4th & 13 at ARMY 35, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. vs NDQ3 6:59 4th & 2 at WIS 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at PURQ4 6:42 4th & 1 at WIS 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs MICHQ2 2:32 4th & 2 at MICH 16, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at MINNQ2 4:07 4th & 9 at MINN 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at RUTGQ2 8:04 4th & 2 at RUTG 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

82nd 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. L

   PSU
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   ND
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   ILL
6. W

   ARMY
7. W

   PUR
8. W

   IOWA
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    NU
11. W

    NEB
12. L

    MINN
13. W

    ASU

What moved it, 2021

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+0.25
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• PSUL 10-16 vs PSU65% → 20%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• EMUW 34-7 vs EMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• NDL 13-41 vs ND69% → 0%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −65, Other −1
• MICHL 17-38 vs MICH58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• ILLW 24-0 at ILL80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• ARMYW 20-14 vs ARMY85% → 96%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20
• PURW 30-13 at PUR61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• IOWAW 27-7 vs IOWA61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• RUTGW 52-3 at RUTG81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• NUW 35-7 vs NU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• NEBW 35-28 vs NEB78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• MINNL 13-23 at MINN69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• ASUW 20-13 at ASU69% → 94%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +39, Clock +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.