Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2695th
  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.
  Offense45.2%71st
  Defense43.3%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4899th
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1478th
  Defense+0.0744th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3896th
  Defense+0.2030th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%53rd
  Defense46.4%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.8%91st
  Defense37.3%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8241st
  Defense2.7464th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%33rd
  Defense21.4%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%59th
  Defense19.5%83rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ULM
2. W
   UCLA
3. W
   SIU
4. L
   UCF
5. W
   CONN
6. W
   NAVY
7. W
   HOU
8. W
   TULN
9. W
   TLSA
10. W
    SMU
11. W
    ECU
12. L
    UCF
13. L
    ISU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2017

1. Riley FergusonQB404 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 9th of 226 QBs
   2.27WAR1.55 to 2.97
2. Darrell HendersonRB121 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 86th of 352 RBs
   0.32WAR0.22 to 0.42
3. Patrick Taylor Jr.RB127 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 108th of 352 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.39
4. Anthony MillerWR118 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 11th of 426 WRs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.39
5. Riley PattersonPK14 plays · +0.351 pts/play · 69th of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Phil MayhueWR38 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 251st of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Spencer SmithP19 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 42nd of 95 punters
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Doroland DorceusRB16 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 265th of 352 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50450469th of 130Roster talent: 504, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715771st of 130Recruiting: 157, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%9th of 128Returning production: 88%, 9th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.8+7.841st of 128SP+ rating: +7.8, 41st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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 ISUQ4 1:52 4th & 10 at ISU 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
2. vs NAVYQ4 1:58 4th & 6 at NAVY 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs ISUQ3 2:16 4th & 3 at ISU 13, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at TLSAQ3 3:05 4th & 2 at TLSA 17, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at UCFQ3 10:21 4th & 4 at UCF 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at HOUQ2 4:27 4th & 3 at MEM 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UCFQ2 2:08 4th & 4 at MEM 48, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs UCLAQ4 3:01 4th & 5 at UCLA 16, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

34th of 130 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

   ULM
2. W

   UCLA
3. W

   SIU
4. L

   UCF
5. W

   CONN
6. W

   NAVY
7. W

   HOU
8. W

   TULN
9. W

   TLSA
10. W

    SMU
11. W

    ECU
12. L

    UCF
13. L

    ISU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.96
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• ULMW 37-29 vs ULM96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• UCLAW 48-45 vs UCLA40% → 94%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• SIUW 44-31 vs SIU97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8
• UCFL 13-40 at UCF36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37
• CONNW 70-31 at CONN87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• NAVYW 30-27 vs NAVY69% → 89%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• HOUW 42-38 at HOU53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• TULNW 56-26 vs TULN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• TLSAW 41-14 at TLSA88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• SMUW 66-45 vs SMU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26
• ECUW 70-13 vs ECU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UCFL 55-62 at UCF35% → 20%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +20
• ISUL 20-21 vs ISU60% → 7%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3

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.