Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2693rd
  Defense+0.1437th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%84th
  Defense40.4%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3289th
  Defense+1.388th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2595th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3284th
  Defense+0.2230th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%76th
  Defense42.6%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.4%87th
  Defense36.3%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1378th
  Defense2.7276th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%60th
  Defense20.3%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%74th
  Defense16.9%63rd

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, 2018

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
   MER
2. L
   NAVY
3. W
   GAST
4. W
   USA
5. L
   TULN
6. W
   CONN
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   MIZ
9. W
   ECU
10. W
    TLSA
11. W
    SMU
12. W
    HOU
13. L
    UCF
14. L
    WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2018

1. Brady WhiteQB315 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 88th of 225 QBs
   0.93WAR0.43 to 1.46
2. Darrell HendersonRB179 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 18th of 351 RBs
   0.73WAR0.54 to 0.92
3. Patrick Taylor Jr.RB169 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 48th of 351 RBs
   0.55WAR0.41 to 0.68
4. Tony PollardRB100 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 151st of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.37
5. Damonte CoxieWR84 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 37th of 434 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
6. Adam WilliamsP48 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 13th of 91 punters
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
7. Riley PattersonPK14 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 64th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Joey MagnificoTE22 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 18th of 204 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48048074th of 130Roster talent: 480, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216272nd of 130Recruiting: 162, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%104th of 129Returning production: 39%, 104th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.2+9.236th of 130SP+ rating: +9.2, 36th of 130 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.19 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. at NAVYQ4 1:33 4th & 4 at NAVY 34, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.2 pts
2. at UCFQ3 2:13 4th & 2 at UCF 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at TULNQ2 6:58 4th & 1 at MEM 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs UCFQ3 4:13 4th & 4 at UCF 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at WAKEQ4 3:32 4th & 6 at WAKE 40, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at UCFQ2 1:50 4th & 1 at MEM 31, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs UCFQ3 12:25 4th & 3 at MEM 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UCFQ2 5:09 4th & 4 at UCF 5, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

121st 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

   MER
2. L

   NAVY
3. W

   GAST
4. W

   USA
5. L

   TULN
6. W

   CONN
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   MIZ
9. W

   ECU
10. W

    TLSA
11. W

    SMU
12. W

    HOU
13. L

    UCF
14. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2018

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−0.14
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• MERW 66-14 vs MER71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• NAVYL 21-22 at NAVY72% → 27%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position +3
• GASTW 59-22 vs GAST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USAW 52-35 vs USA97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• TULNL 24-40 at TULN81% → 1%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts −2
• CONNW 55-14 vs CONN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UCFL 30-31 vs UCF31% → 21%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −31, Clock −3
• MIZL 33-65 at MIZ22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −1
• ECUW 59-41 at ECU78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• TLSAW 47-21 vs TLSA83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• SMUW 28-18 at SMU67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• HOUW 52-31 vs HOU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• UCFL 41-56 at UCF37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• WAKEL 34-37 at WAKE56% → 19%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −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.