Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1237th
  Defense+0.0391st
• 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.
  Offense41.8%39th
  Defense36.3%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1743rd
  Defense+1.2434th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0428th
  Defense−0.0492nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2356th
  Defense+0.1089th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%35th
  Defense40.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.4%46th
  Defense28.3%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6224th
  Defense2.2298th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%21st
  Defense25.4%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%37th
  Defense2.2%63rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Memphis 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
   APSU
2. L
   UCLA
3. W
   MTSU
4. L
   MISS
5. W
   CIN
6. L
   HOU
7. W
   SMU
8. W
   TLSA
9. W
   TEM
10. W
    TULN
11. W
    USF
12. W
    CONN
13. W
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2014

1. Paxton LynchQB447 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 10th of 199 QBs
   2.45WAR1.77 to 3.17
2. Brandon HayesRB159 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 83rd of 350 RBs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.38
3. Jake ElliottPK28 plays · +0.407 pts/play · 5th of 114 kickers
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
4. Spencer SmithP50 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 8th of 94 punters
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.27
5. Keiwone MaloneWR44 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 84th of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
6. Mose FrazierWR57 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 131st of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
7. Sam Craft?72 plays · +0.087 pts/play
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.17
8. Doroland DorceusRB35 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 229th of 350 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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 Memphis'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Memphis'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 0.18 of the 0.28 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 HOUQ4 5:50 4th & 3 at HOU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. vs BYUQ4 4:06 4th & 9 at BYU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs MTSUQ3 7:09 4th & 1 at MTSU 12, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at CINQ2 8:19 4th & 3 at CIN 3, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at TEMQ2 9:15 4th & 1 at MEM 20, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at TEMQ4 5:24 4th & 5 at TEM 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs BYUQ2 2:11 4th & 2 at MEM 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at UCLAQ4 7:13 4th & 5 at MEM 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

19th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Memphis's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   APSU
2. L

   UCLA
3. W

   MTSU
4. L

   MISS
5. W

   CIN
6. L

   HOU
7. W

   SMU
8. W

   TLSA
9. W

   TEM
10. W

    TULN
11. W

    USF
12. W

    CONN
13. W

    BYU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Memphis'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+1.65
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.19

Game by game

• APSUW 63-0 vs APSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• UCLAL 35-42 at UCLA7% → 9%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• MTSUW 36-17 vs MTSU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts −1
• MISSL 3-24 at MISS8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• CINW 41-14 at CIN37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +61, Clock +1
• HOUL 24-28 vs HOU62% → 6%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock −4
• SMUW 48-10 at SMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• TLSAW 40-20 vs TLSA93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• TEMW 16-13 at TEM63% → 95%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• TULNW 38-7 at TULN80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• USFW 31-20 vs USF88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 41-10 vs CONN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• BYUW 55-48 vs BYU56% → 81%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts −21

Points of win probability, from Memphis's side.

Closest call

MEM 36-26 ISU (2023) - Memphis dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.