Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1855th
  Defense+0.1929th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%41st
  Defense43.4%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3991st
  Defense+1.2554th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1044th
  Defense+0.1533rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2353rd
  Defense+0.2440th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%40th
  Defense46.8%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%67th
  Defense34.6%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9431st
  Defense3.2330th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%43rd
  Defense12.7%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%34th
  Defense15.5%29th

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, 2021

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
   NICH
2. W
   ARST
3. W
   MSST
4. L
   UTSA
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   TLSA
7. W
   NAVY
8. L
   UCF
9. W
   SMU
10. L
    ECU
11. L
    HOU
12. W
    TULN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2021

1. Seth HeniganQB402 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 14th of 219 QBs
   2.46WAR1.65 to 3.29
2. Brandon ThomasRB106 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 125th of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.22 to 0.47
3. Calvin Austin IIIWR77 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 38th of 474 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
4. Rodrigues ClarkRB76 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 197th of 387 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.29
5. Peter ParrishQB50 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 183rd of 219 QBs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.25
6. Joe DoyleP39 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 46th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
7. Marquavius WeaverRB34 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 300th of 387 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
8. Asa MartinRB31 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 300th of 387 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57257265th of 130Roster talent: 572, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117167th of 130Recruiting: 171, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%119th of 128Returning production: 36%, 119th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.0+1.074th of 130SP+ rating: +1.0, 74th 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, 2021

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.22 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 ECUQ4 0:19 4th & 1 at ECU 21, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−7.4 pts
2. at ARSTQ4 0:53 4th & 3 at ARST 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs SMUQ3 2:41 4th & 11 at SMU 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
4. vs SMUQ3 11:20 4th & 12 at SMU 28, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
5. vs TULNQ2 0:13 4th & 13 at TULN 32, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
6. vs MSSTQ3 0:56 4th & 3 at MEM 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at ARSTQ4 3:48 4th & 4 at ARST 45, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UTSAQ3 8:44 4th & 6 at UTSA 34, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

85th 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

   NICH
2. W

   ARST
3. W

   MSST
4. L

   UTSA
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   TLSA
7. W

   NAVY
8. L

   UCF
9. W

   SMU
10. L

    ECU
11. L

    HOU
12. W

    TULN

What moved it, 2021

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−0.55
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• NICHW 42-17 vs NICH92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• ARSTW 55-50 at ARST65% → 89%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3
• MSSTW 31-29 vs MSST38% → 92%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• UTSAL 28-31 vs UTSA51% → 7%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• TEML 31-34 at TEM78% → 23%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +5
• TLSAL 29-35 at TLSA42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• NAVYW 35-17 vs NAVY80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 7-24 at UCF46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• SMUW 28-25 vs SMU40% → 84%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• ECUL 29-30 vs ECU57% → 28%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −22
• HOUL 13-31 at HOU25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• TULNW 33-28 vs TULN62% → 76%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −4

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.