Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2386th
  Defense+0.1146th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%58th
  Defense40.0%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3481st
  Defense+1.4010th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1983rd
  Defense−0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2777th
  Defense+0.2229th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%47th
  Defense44.9%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%71st
  Defense30.5%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2780th
  Defense2.6486th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%65th
  Defense22.7%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%93rd
  Defense19.8%88th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UNA
2. W
   TROY
3. W
   FSU
4. L
   NAVY
5. W
   MTSU
6. W
   USF
7. W
   UNT
8. W
   CLT
9. L
   UTSA
10. W
    RICE
11. W
    UAB
12. W
    TULN
13. W
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2024

1. Seth HeniganQB470 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 16th of 232 QBs
   2.20WAR1.37 to 2.97
2. Mario AndersonRB240 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 18th of 373 RBs
   0.53WAR0.33 to 0.71
3. Roc TaylorWR62 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 18th of 452 WRs
   0.25WAR0.08 to 0.42
4. Demeer BlankumseeWR45 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 74th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.00 to 0.29
5. Joshua SloanP40 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 12th of 106 punters
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
6. Brandon ThomasRB54 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 208th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
7. Koby DrakeWR35 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 129th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
8. Greg Desrosiers Jr.RB21 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 234th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63363372nd of 131Roster talent: 633, 72nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218261st of 131Recruiting: 182, 61st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%15th of 130Returning production: 80%, 15th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.631st of 131SP+ rating: +9.6, 31st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.11 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. vs CLTQ4 1:56 4th & 3 at CLT 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. at TULNQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at TULN 49, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.8 pts
3. at NAVYQ4 8:42 4th & 10 at NAVY 10, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. at WVUQ3 4:57 4th & 2 at MEM 45, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at NAVYQ2 2:14 4th & 4 at NAVY 11, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at FSUQ4 2:46 4th & 6 at FSU 37, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UTSAQ4 9:38 4th & 5 at MEM 36, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs UNTQ2 2:07 4th & 6 at MEM 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

25th of 134 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

   UNA
2. W

   TROY
3. W

   FSU
4. L

   NAVY
5. W

   MTSU
6. W

   USF
7. W

   UNT
8. W

   CLT
9. L

   UTSA
10. W

    RICE
11. W

    UAB
12. W

    TULN
13. W

    WVU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.99
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.94

Game by game

• UNAW 40-0 vs UNA99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TROYW 38-17 vs TROY92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• FSUW 20-12 at FSU34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• NAVYL 44-56 at NAVY79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position +1
• MTSUW 24-7 vs MTSU96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• USFW 21-3 at USF73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• UNTW 52-44 vs UNT81% → 91%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −1
• CLTW 33-28 vs CLT87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• UTSAL 36-44 at UTSA73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −2
• RICEW 27-20 vs RICE73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• UABW 53-18 vs UAB87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• TULNW 34-24 at TULN22% → 96%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• WVUW 42-37 at WVU60% → 94%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +45, 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.