Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0939th
  Defense+0.0577th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%66th
  Defense41.4%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.072nd
  Defense+1.1879th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1258th
  Defense+0.0368th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1122nd
  Defense+0.1672nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%61st
  Defense46.8%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%63rd
  Defense29.2%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4995th
  Defense3.0356th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.4%98th
  Defense18.5%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%70th
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   BUF
2. L
   WSU
3. W
   GASO
4. W
   PUR
5. W
   RUTG
6. L
   IOWA
7. W
   ILL
8. L
   OSU
9. L
   IU
10. L
    NU
11. W
    NEB
12. W
    MINN
13. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2023

1. Tanner MordecaiQB361 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 68th of 250 QBs
   1.32WAR0.68 to 2.00
2. Braelon AllenRB187 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 25th of 383 RBs
   0.45WAR0.28 to 0.62
3. Braedyn LockeQB153 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 171st of 250 QBs
   0.27WAR−0.08 to 0.63
4. Will PaulingWR88 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 102nd of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR−0.03 to 0.36
5. Bryson GreenWR38 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 111th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
6. Nathanial VakosPK19 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 22nd of 113 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Chez MellusiRB44 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 219th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Jackson AckerTE79 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 51st of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.20

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74274230th of 130Roster talent: 742, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221229th of 130Recruiting: 212, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

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

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.429th of 130SP+ rating: +9.4, 29th 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, 2023

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 13 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.34 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 NEBQ4 3:37 4th & 3 at NEB 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at LSUQ4 10:34 4th & 2 at WIS 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at LSUQ3 1:18 4th & 3 at LSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs OSUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at OSU 1, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at IUQ4 8:09 4th & 2 at WIS 16, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. vs IOWAQ2 6:41 4th & 1 at WIS 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
7. vs OSUQ3 5:36 4th & 1 at WIS 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs NEBQ2 1:54 4th & 2 at NEB 17, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

106th of 133 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

   BUF
2. L

   WSU
3. W

   GASO
4. W

   PUR
5. W

   RUTG
6. L

   IOWA
7. W

   ILL
8. L

   OSU
9. L

   IU
10. L

    NU
11. W

    NEB
12. W

    MINN
13. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2023

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−0.32
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.95

Game by game

• BUFW 38-17 vs BUF93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• WSUL 22-31 at WSU61% → 3%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• GASOW 35-14 vs GASO91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• PURW 38-17 at PUR68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• RUTGW 24-13 vs RUTG80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• IOWAL 6-15 vs IOWA73% → 3%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −59, Clock −4
• ILLW 25-21 at ILL61% → 84%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• OSUL 10-24 vs OSU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• IUL 14-20 at IU74% → 8%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −4
• NUL 10-24 vs NU76% → 1%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −63, Clock −4
• NEBW 24-17 vs NEB69% → 87%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −20
• MINNW 28-14 at MINN58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• LSUL 31-35 at LSU19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1

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.