Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0623rd
  Defense+0.1627th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%47th
  Defense43.4%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.082nd
  Defense+1.1389th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0427th
  Defense+0.1333rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0722nd
  Defense+0.2323rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%56th
  Defense49.3%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%17th
  Defense27.9%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1668th
  Defense3.2722nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%69th
  Defense16.5%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%35th
  Defense12.5%7th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   WMU
2. W
   SDAK
3. L
   ALA
4. L
   USC
5. W
   PUR
6. W
   RUTG
7. W
   NU
8. L
   PSU
9. L
   IOWA
10. L
    ORE
11. L
    NEB
12. L
    MINN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2024

1. Tawee WalkerRB174 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 48th of 373 RBs
   0.40WAR0.27 to 0.53
2. Atticus BertramsP43 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 10th of 106 punters
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
3. Tyler Van DykeQB49 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 196th of 232 QBs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.23
4. Vinny Anthony IIWR31 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 101st of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Braedyn LockeQB246 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 198th of 232 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.31 to 0.59
6. Darrion DupreeRB54 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 214th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
7. Chez MellusiRB37 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 255th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
8. Nathanial VakosPK16 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 58th of 114 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77177127th of 131Roster talent: 771, 27th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21621627th of 131Recruiting: 216, 27th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%56th of 130Returning production: 51%, 56th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.0+3.058th of 131SP+ rating: +3.0, 58th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 NUQ2 1:08 4th & 1 at NU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at RUTGQ3 12:50 4th & 4 at RUTG 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at NUQ4 12:42 4th & 3 at NU 36, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at IOWAQ3 12:04 4th & 2 at WIS 46, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs PSUQ2 11:00 4th & 2 at WIS 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs PSUQ4 1:10 4th & 9 at PSU 15, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at NEBQ2 9:58 4th & 3 at NEB 16, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at USCQ4 3:00 4th & 10 at USC 18, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

102nd of 134 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

   WMU
2. W

   SDAK
3. L

   ALA
4. L

   USC
5. W

   PUR
6. W

   RUTG
7. W

   NU
8. L

   PSU
9. L

   IOWA
10. L

    ORE
11. L

    NEB
12. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2024

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−1.13
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• WMUW 28-14 vs WMU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• SDAKW 27-13 vs SDAK91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• ALAL 10-42 vs ALA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19
• USCL 21-38 at USC19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23
• PURW 52-6 vs PUR79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• RUTGW 42-7 at RUTG48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53
• NUW 23-3 at NU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• PSUL 13-28 vs PSU29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• IOWAL 10-42 at IOWA44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts +1
• OREL 13-16 vs ORE19% → 6%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• NEBL 25-44 at NEB45% → 2%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +1
• MINNL 7-24 vs MINN48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, 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.