Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2286th
  Defense+0.1143rd
• 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.
  Offense46.3%77th
  Defense44.1%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2053rd
  Defense+1.1950th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0754th
  Defense+0.0359th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3691st
  Defense+0.2231st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%72nd
  Defense47.7%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.3%87th
  Defense35.9%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8244th
  Defense2.9142nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%41st
  Defense19.6%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense2.8%87th

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, 2015

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
   MOST
2. W
   KU
3. W
   BGSU
4. W
   CIN
5. W
   USF
6. W
   MISS
7. W
   TLSA
8. W
   TULN
9. L
   NAVY
10. L
    HOU
11. L
    TEM
12. W
    SMU
13. L
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2015

1. Paxton LynchQB486 plays · +0.322 pts/play · 7th of 205 QBs
   2.93WAR2.17 to 3.75
2. Doroland DorceusRB152 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 48th of 333 RBs
   0.37WAR0.24 to 0.49
3. Mose FrazierWR94 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 51st of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.36
4. Phil MayhueWR69 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 68th of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.32
5. Anthony MillerWR63 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 74th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
6. Jake ElliottPK26 plays · +0.407 pts/play · 9th of 115 kickers
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
7. Spencer SmithP39 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 18th of 92 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
8. Jarvis CooperRB67 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 176th of 333 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38238296th of 128Roster talent: 382, 96th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14114176th of 128Recruiting: 141, 76th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%37th of 127Returning production: 77%, 37th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.047th of 128SP+ rating: +8.0, 47th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 CINQ3 11:55 4th & 1 at MEM 32, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at USFQ3 13:58 4th & 2 at USF 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at KUQ3 3:53 4th & 1 at KU 14, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs AUBQ3 6:47 4th & 2 at MEM 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at USFQ2 1:54 4th & 2 at USF 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs TULNQ3 12:29 4th & 4 at TULN 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at TLSAQ2 3:53 4th & 3 at TLSA 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs AUBQ4 6:13 4th & 16 at AUB 22, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

51st 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

   MOST
2. W

   KU
3. W

   BGSU
4. W

   CIN
5. W

   USF
6. W

   MISS
7. W

   TLSA
8. W

   TULN
9. L

   NAVY
10. L

    HOU
11. L

    TEM
12. W

    SMU
13. L

    AUB

What moved it, 2015

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+0.76
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• MOSTW 63-7 vs MOST75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• KUW 55-23 at KU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• BGSUW 44-41 at BGSU59% → 89%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• CINW 53-46 vs CIN59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −1
• USFW 24-17 at USF77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• MISSW 37-24 vs MISS22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +2
• TLSAW 66-42 at TLSA76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• TULNW 41-13 vs TULN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• NAVYL 20-45 vs NAVY75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −66, Clock −2
• HOUL 34-35 at HOU38% → 10%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• TEML 12-31 at TEM56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• SMUW 63-0 vs SMU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• AUBL 10-31 vs AUB46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2

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.