Memphis

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2987th
  Defense+0.0850th
• 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.
  Offense50.5%91st
  Defense39.4%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2758th
  Defense+1.4110th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2281st
  Defense+0.2113th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5898th
  Defense0.0085th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.2%91st
  Defense46.6%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%69th
  Defense25.8%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6196th
  Defense3.2715th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.3%88th
  Defense12.7%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.9%89th
  Defense16.6%59th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   UNLV
2. W
   ARST
3. L
   BOIS
4. W
   UTM
5. W
   CLT
6. W
   UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Memphis.

Players, 2026

1. Marcus StokesQB143 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 55th of 192 QBs
   0.32WAR0.09 to 0.55
2. Jaylin CarterRB76 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 7th of 320 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.27
3. Manny CoveyRB46 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 92nd of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
4. Hunter TiptonTE20 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 3rd of 164 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
5. Tychaun ChapmanWR18 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 147th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
6. Philippe LaforgePK6 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 37th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Brady KluseWR6 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 271st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Dallan HaydenRB6 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 285th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067067th of 138Roster talent: 670, 67th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718767th of 138Recruiting: 187, 67th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  6%6%127th of 136Returning production: 6%, 127th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.6+7.648th of 138SP+ rating so far: +7.6, 48th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.12 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 BOISQ4 11:24 4th & 13 at BOIS 17, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.8 pts
2. at BOISQ4 4:13 4th & 17 at BOIS 48, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.8 pts
3. at UNLVQ2 12:44 4th & 1 at MEM 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at BOISQ3 4:00 4th & 5 at BOIS 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UABQ2 10:42 4th & 3 at UAB 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at CLTQ3 8:17 4th & 4 at CLT 46, up 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs ARSTQ1 9:36 4th & 1 at MEM 16, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs UTMQ1 7:32 4th & 2 at UTM 12, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

10th of 138 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

   UNLV
2. W

   ARST
3. L

   BOIS
4. W

   UTM
5. W

   CLT
6. W

   UAB

What moved it, 2026

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+1.60
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• UNLVW 27-21 at UNLV35% → 92%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position +4
• ARSTW 42-24 vs ARST74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• BOISL 20-38 at BOIS20% → 79%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −3
• UTMW 45-21 vs UTM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• CLTW 59-8 at CLT87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• UABW 38-13 vs UAB81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, 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.