Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2487th
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense46.8%83rd
  Defense43.1%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3379th
  Defense+1.3421st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1155th
  Defense+0.0466th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3985th
  Defense+0.2058th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%71st
  Defense48.4%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.1%96th
  Defense30.6%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9525th
  Defense2.9964th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%35th
  Defense20.3%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%87th
  Defense17.3%63rd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   BCU
2. W
   ARST
3. W
   NAVY
4. L
   MIZ
5. W
   BOIS
6. L
   TULN
7. W
   UAB
8. W
   UNT
9. W
   USF
10. W
    CLT
11. L
    SMU
12. W
    TEM
13. W
    ISU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2023

1. Seth HeniganQB504 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 9th of 250 QBs
   2.34WAR1.40 to 3.26
2. Blake WatsonRB203 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 22nd of 383 RBs
   0.46WAR0.22 to 0.68
3. Roc TaylorWR69 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 18th of 457 WRs
   0.31WAR0.15 to 0.49
4. Demeer BlankumseeWR51 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 70th of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.04 to 0.35
5. Koby DrakeWR30 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 172nd of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. Anthony LandphereTE29 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 55th of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.15
7. Sutton SmithRB56 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 240th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Joseph ScatesWR34 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 271st of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.05 to 0.15

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62762764th of 130Roster talent: 627, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917962nd of 130Recruiting: 179, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%65th of 128Returning production: 52%, 65th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.5+3.553rd of 130SP+ rating: +3.5, 53rd 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, 2023

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 0.11 of the 0.16 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 MIZQ4 5:18 4th & 3 at MIZ 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. at ISUQ2 10:22 4th & 10 at ISU 28, down 12Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
3. at UNTQ3 0:11 4th & 1 at MEM 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs NAVYQ3 5:43 4th & 4 at NAVY 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs NAVYQ3 1:46 4th & 2 at MEM 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs TULNQ4 1:11 4th & 18 at TULN 41, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at UNTQ3 12:04 4th & 2 at MEM 47, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at UABQ2 6:30 4th & 3 at MEM 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

24th of 133 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

   BCU
2. W

   ARST
3. W

   NAVY
4. L

   MIZ
5. W

   BOIS
6. L

   TULN
7. W

   UAB
8. W

   UNT
9. W

   USF
10. W

    CLT
11. L

    SMU
12. W

    TEM
13. W

    ISU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.61
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.16
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• BCUW 56-14 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ARSTW 37-3 at ARST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• NAVYW 28-24 vs NAVY84% → 95%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• MIZL 27-34 at MIZ32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• BOISW 35-32 vs BOIS59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• TULNL 21-31 vs TULN41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• UABW 45-21 at UAB72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• UNTW 45-42 at UNT71% → 86%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +33, Clock +3
• USFW 59-50 vs USF84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• CLTW 44-38 at CLT83% → 90%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +12
• SMUL 34-38 vs SMU30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• TEMW 45-21 at TEM79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• ISUW 36-26 at ISU28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +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.