Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1156th
  Defense+0.0472nd
• 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.
  Offense44.7%65th
  Defense43.3%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2158th
  Defense+1.1663rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.122nd
  Defense+0.0554th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3383rd
  Defense+0.0769th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%46th
  Defense48.2%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.
  Offense39.0%84th
  Defense31.4%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7431st
  Defense2.9237th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%60th
  Defense18.9%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.5%19th

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, 2015

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
   JKST
2. L
   ALA
3. W
   CLT
4. L
   ILL
5. L
   VAN
6. L
   WKU
7. W
   FIU
8. L
   LT
9. W
   MRSH
10. W
    FAU
11. W
    UNT
12. W
    UTSA
13. L
    WMU

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

Players, 2015

1. Brent StockstillQB354 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 26th of 205 QBs
   2.01WAR1.40 to 2.60
2. Richie JamesWR106 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 26th of 411 WRs
   0.30WAR0.12 to 0.47
3. Desmond AndersonCB65 plays · +0.104 pts/play
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
4. Jordan ParkerRB72 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 209th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
5. Terry PettisWR18 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 225th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Ed'Marques BattiesWR90 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 262nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.07 to 0.22
7. Cody ClarkPK9 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 102nd of 115 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jeremiah BrysonRB20 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 241st of 333 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41041082nd of 128Roster talent: 410, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912983rd of 128Recruiting: 129, 83rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%43rd of 127Returning production: 74%, 43rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.6−4.690th of 128SP+ rating: −4.6, 90th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.16 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 MRSHQ3 0:55 4th & 1 at MRSH 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at FAUQ3 3:42 4th & 1 at FAU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs VANQ4 3:24 4th & 2 at VAN 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
4. vs FIUQ2 6:05 4th & 1 at MTSU 30, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at WMUQ3 3:35 4th & 3 at WMU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs FIUQ4 6:59 4th & 2 at MTSU 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ILLQ4 2:09 4th & 10 at MTSU 25, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at WKUQ2 11:27 4th & 2 at MTSU 31, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

74th 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.

1. W

   JKST
2. L

   ALA
3. W

   CLT
4. L

   ILL
5. L

   VAN
6. L

   WKU
7. W

   FIU
8. L

   LT
9. W

   MRSH
10. W

    FAU
11. W

    UNT
12. W

    UTSA
13. L

    WMU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.11
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• JKSTW 70-14 vs JKST74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• ALAL 10-37 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• CLTW 73-14 vs CLT89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• ILLL 25-27 at ILL31% → 5%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• VANL 13-17 vs VAN59% → 5%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• WKUL 28-58 at WKU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +1
• FIUW 42-34 vs FIU70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30
• LTL 16-45 at LT31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• MRSHW 27-24 vs MRSH60% → 88%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −17
• FAUW 24-17 at FAU66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• UNTW 41-7 vs UNT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• UTSAW 42-7 at UTSA80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25
• WMUL 31-45 at WMU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −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.