Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%65th
  Defense42.7%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2135th
  Defense+1.2261st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0538th
  Defense−0.0184th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2973rd
  Defense+0.2338th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%62nd
  Defense46.0%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%72nd
  Defense35.9%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9222nd
  Defense2.8482nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%18th
  Defense18.1%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%54th
  Defense13.8%17th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2022

1. Seth HeniganQB472 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 17th of 234 QBs
   2.20WAR1.41 to 3.04
2. Jay DuckerRB82 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 137th of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
3. Asa MartinRB90 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 150th of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Caden PrieskornTE42 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 13th of 214 TEs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
5. Eddie LewisWR40 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 140th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
6. Javon IvoryWR47 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 160th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
7. Brandon ThomasRB63 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 248th of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.17
8. Chris HowardPK18 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 26th of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53353373rd of 129Roster talent: 533, 73rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17517562nd of 129Recruiting: 175, 62nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%28th of 128Returning production: 75%, 28th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.8+6.849th of 129SP+ rating: +6.8, 49th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.06 of the 0.11 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 UCFQ3 1:08 4th & 15 at UCF 39, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
2. at SMUQ4 2:13 4th & 10 at SMU 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. vs TLSAQ3 10:18 4th & 2 at TLSA 44, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at TULNQ2 13:03 4th & 1 at MEM 28, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at NAVYQ3 8:29 4th & 4 at NAVY 4, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs HOUQ4 8:00 4th & 3 at HOU 8, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at SMUQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at SMU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs UNTQ2 3:05 4th & 3 at MEM 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

97th of 131 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. L

   MSST
2. W

   NAVY
3. W

   ARST
4. W

   UNT
5. W

   TEM
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   ECU
8. L

   TULN
9. L

   UCF
10. W

    TLSA
11. W

    UNA
12. L

    SMU
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.26
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• MSSTL 23-49 at MSST14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• NAVYW 37-13 at NAVY69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• ARSTW 44-32 vs ARST86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• UNTW 44-34 vs UNT83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• TEMW 24-3 vs TEM89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• HOUL 32-33 vs HOU53% → 25%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• ECUL 45-47 at ECU35% → 16%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +19
• TULNL 28-38 at TULN30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• UCFL 28-35 vs UCF42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• TLSAW 26-10 vs TLSA71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• UNAW 59-0 vs UNA98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• SMUL 31-34 at SMU40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position +1
• USUW 38-10 at USU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +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.