Wisconsin

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.092nd
  Defense+0.1336th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%4th
  Defense44.8%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2350th
  Defense+1.1780th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0121st
  Defense+0.0362nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.121st
  Defense+0.2624th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.3%4th
  Defense51.5%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.2%12th
  Defense29.3%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8233rd
  Defense2.7569th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%47th
  Defense21.9%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%13th
  Defense12.9%12th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   M-OH
2. W
   MTSU
3. L
   ALA
4. L
   MD
5. L
   MICH
6. L
   IOWA
7. L
   OSU
8. L
   ORE
9. W
   WASH
10. L
    IU
11. W
    ILL
12. L
    MINN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wisconsin.

Players, 2025

1. Atticus BertramsP31 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 4th of 100 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
2. Darrion DupreeRB68 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 203rd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
3. Dilin JonesRB66 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 218th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
4. Carter SmithQB83 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 193rd of 231 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.04 to 0.26
5. Vinny Anthony IIWR36 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 202nd of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
6. Billy Edwards Jr.QB16 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 201st of 231 QBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Lance MasonTE37 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 63rd of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.14
8. Hunter SimmonsQB83 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 208th of 231 QBs
   0.06WAR−0.14 to 0.23

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76376328th of 134Roster talent: 763, 28th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221230th of 134Recruiting: 212, 30th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%59th of 132Returning production: 40%, 59th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.4−4.483rd of 134SP+ rating: −4.4, 83rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.20 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 ILLQ4 12:20 4th & 17 at WIS 46, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.3 pts
2. vs WASHQ4 3:03 4th & 5 at WASH 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs WASHQ3 11:45 4th & 10 at WIS 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
4. vs ILLQ2 2:49 4th & 1 at WIS 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs MDQ2 6:24 4th & 1 at WIS 19, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at MINNQ3 0:37 4th & 8 at MINN 33, down 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs ILLQ2 8:53 4th & 1 at WIS 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs OSUQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at WIS 29, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

82nd of 136 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

   M-OH
2. W

   MTSU
3. L

   ALA
4. L

   MD
5. L

   MICH
6. L

   IOWA
7. L

   OSU
8. L

   ORE
9. W

   WASH
10. L

    IU
11. W

    ILL
12. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2025

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−0.90
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• M-OHW 17-0 vs M-OH90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15, Clock −1
• MTSUW 42-10 vs MTSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ALAL 14-38 at ALA10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• MDL 10-27 vs MD77% → 1%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• MICHL 10-24 at MICH11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• IOWAL 0-37 vs IOWA37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −41
• OSUL 0-34 vs OSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• OREL 7-21 at ORE3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• WASHW 13-10 vs WASH22% → 96%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• IUL 7-31 at IU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• ILLW 27-10 vs ILL26% → 99%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts +3
• MINNL 7-17 at MINN57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −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.