Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1754th
  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.
  Offense44.6%62nd
  Defense46.5%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1638th
  Defense+1.0987th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1364th
  Defense+0.1146th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2460th
  Defense+0.2920th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%61st
  Defense49.8%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%54th
  Defense38.7%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1478th
  Defense3.2412th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%75th
  Defense15.1%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%52nd
  Defense1.3%7th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Middle Tennessee 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
   SAV
2. L
   MINN
3. W
   WKU
4. L
   MEM
5. W
   ODU
6. W
   USM
7. L
   MRSH
8. W
   UAB
9. L
   BYU
10. L
    FIU
11. W
    FAU
12. L
    UTEP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Middle Tennessee.

Players, 2014

1. Austin GrammerQB327 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 71st of 199 QBs
   1.39WAR0.84 to 1.94
2. Reggie WhatleyRB70 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 145th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
3. Jordan ParkerRB99 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 174th of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Terry PettisWR20 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 196th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
5. Cody ClarkPK13 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 74th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Jeremiah BrysonRB41 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 230th of 350 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Shane TuckerWR108 plays · +0.029 pts/play · 320th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.05 to 0.17
8. Ed'Marques BattiesWR39 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 383rd of 469 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.03 to 0.10

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 Middle Tennessee'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Middle Tennessee'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 0.12 of the 0.17 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 UABQ4 9:59 4th & 3 at UAB 36, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. vs UABQ4 14:47 4th & 1 at MTSU 38, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. at ODUQ3 14:53 4th & 1 at MTSU 34, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at FIUQ4 7:19 4th & 22 at MTSU 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
5. vs BYUQ3 9:24 4th & 7 at BYU 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at MEMQ2 7:34 4th & 3 at MEM 42, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs WKUQ2 10:38 4th & 2 at MTSU 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UTEPQ2 8:36 4th & 6 at UTEP 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

66th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Middle Tennessee's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   SAV
2. L

   MINN
3. W

   WKU
4. L

   MEM
5. W

   ODU
6. W

   USM
7. L

   MRSH
8. W

   UAB
9. L

   BYU
10. L

    FIU
11. W

    FAU
12. L

    UTEP

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Middle Tennessee'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−0.08
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09

Game by game

• SAVW 61-7 vs SAV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MINNL 24-35 at MINN18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −1
• WKUW 50-47 vs WKU52% → 85%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −23
• MEML 17-36 at MEM26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +1
• ODUW 41-28 at ODU46% → 98%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• USMW 37-31 vs USM86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 24-49 at MRSH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts +1
• UABW 34-22 vs UAB57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 7-27 vs BYU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• FIUL 28-38 at FIU54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• UTEPL 21-24 at UTEP42% → 12%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −2

Points of win probability, from Middle Tennessee's side.

Closest call

MTSU 45-31 MIA (2022) - Middle Tennessee dropped to a 4.4% win probability before pulling it out.