Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1877th
  Defense+0.1728th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%72nd
  Defense46.1%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3086th
  Defense+1.1854th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0335th
  Defense+0.1911th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3183rd
  Defense+0.1649th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%72nd
  Defense51.6%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%67th
  Defense33.7%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7627th
  Defense3.0931st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.1%9th
  Defense18.2%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%18th
  Defense15.5%39th

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2016

1. Riley FergusonQB385 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 43rd of 218 QBs
   1.59WAR0.93 to 2.35
2. Anthony MillerWR108 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 10th of 417 WRs
   0.39WAR0.23 to 0.55
3. Doroland DorceusRB98 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 88th of 347 RBs
   0.37WAR0.26 to 0.47
4. Darrell HendersonRB87 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 149th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.32
5. Jake ElliottPK21 plays · +0.461 pts/play · 15th of 116 kickers
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
6. Patrick Taylor Jr.RB65 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 201st of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Phil MayhueWR50 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 141st of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
8. Spencer SmithP26 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 46th of 82 punters
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45145179th of 128Roster talent: 451, 79th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015076th of 128Recruiting: 150, 76th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%115th of 128Returning production: 34%, 115th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.749th of 128SP+ rating: +7.7, 49th 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, 2016

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 0.13 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 USFQ4 10:05 4th & 2 at USF 33, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs HOUQ4 9:34 4th & 3 at MEM 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at TULNQ3 1:07 4th & 4 at TULN 33, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs USFQ2 1:59 4th & 2 at MEM 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs KUQ2 10:31 4th & 1 at KU 39, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at WKUQ4 0:34 4th & 16 at WKU 24, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at MISSQ3 11:15 4th & 8 at MEM 27, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at TULNQ2 11:38 4th & 2 at MEM 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

58th 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

   SEMO
2. W

   KU
3. W

   BGSU
4. L

   MISS
5. W

   TEM
6. W

   TULN
7. L

   NAVY
8. L

   TLSA
9. W

   SMU
10. L

    USF
11. W

    CIN
12. W

    HOU
13. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2016

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 →

• Possession & field position+0.07
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• SEMOW 35-17 vs SEMO95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• KUW 43-7 vs KU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• BGSUW 77-3 vs BGSU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• MISSL 28-48 at MISS12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• TEMW 34-27 vs TEM64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• TULNW 24-14 at TULN76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• NAVYL 28-42 at NAVY60% → 2%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• TLSAL 30-59 vs TLSA68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −66, Possession & field position +1
• SMUW 51-7 at SMU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43
• USFL 42-49 vs USF37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• CINW 34-7 at CIN67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +39
• HOUW 48-44 vs HOU36% → 79%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +3
• WKUL 31-51 at WKU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1

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.