Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2791st
  Defense+0.1340th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%82nd
  Defense46.1%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3698th
  Defense+1.1569th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2494th
  Defense+0.1719th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3184th
  Defense+0.1067th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%81st
  Defense52.4%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%78th
  Defense30.0%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3796th
  Defense3.1815th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%84th
  Defense14.0%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%66th
  Defense15.8%44th

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, 2016

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
   AAMU
2. L
   VAN
3. W
   BGSU
4. W
   LT
5. W
   UNT
6. L
   WKU
7. W
   MIZ
8. W
   FIU
9. L
   UTSA
10. L
    MRSH
11. W
    CLT
12. W
    FAU
13. L
    HAW

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

Players, 2016

1. Brent StockstillQB337 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 39th of 218 QBs
   1.69WAR1.15 to 2.26
2. I'Tavius MathersRB242 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 12th of 347 RBs
   0.78WAR0.54 to 1.03
3. Richie JamesWR153 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 2nd of 417 WRs
   0.57WAR0.36 to 0.79
4. John UrzuaQB110 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 151st of 218 QBs
   0.28WAR0.07 to 0.46
5. Ty LeeWR72 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 124th of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Canon RookerPK16 plays · +0.369 pts/play · 49th of 116 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Dennis AndrewsWR43 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Patrick SmithWR36 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 241st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43743785th of 128Roster talent: 437, 85th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912984th of 128Recruiting: 129, 84th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%37th of 128Returning production: 78%, 37th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.9−1.974th of 128SP+ rating: −1.9, 74th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.18 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 6:17 4th & 2 at MIZ 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. vs WKUQ4 3:48 4th & 3 at WKU 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at CLTQ4 8:18 4th & 1 at MTSU 34, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at UNTQ3 12:25 4th & 1 at MTSU 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at BGSUQ4 10:47 4th & 3 at BGSU 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at FIUQ2 10:34 4th & 1 at MTSU 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at MRSHQ3 11:13 4th & 7 at MRSH 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at FIUQ3 3:49 4th & 5 at FIU 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

106th 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

   AAMU
2. L

   VAN
3. W

   BGSU
4. W

   LT
5. W

   UNT
6. L

   WKU
7. W

   MIZ
8. W

   FIU
9. L

   UTSA
10. L

    MRSH
11. W

    CLT
12. W

    FAU
13. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2016

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−0.53
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.00

Game by game

• AAMUW 55-0 vs AAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• VANL 24-47 at VAN42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +1
• BGSUW 41-21 at BGSU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• LTW 38-34 vs LT69% → 93%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −1
• UNTW 30-13 at UNT90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• WKUL 43-44 vs WKU62% → 10%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −18
• MIZW 51-45 at MIZ39% → 96%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• FIUW 42-35 at FIU87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• UTSAL 25-45 vs UTSA90% → 1%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −66, Clock −1
• MRSHL 17-42 at MRSH78% → 0%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −64, Timeouts +4
• CLTW 38-31 at CLT68% → 95%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• FAUW 77-56 vs FAU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• HAWL 35-52 vs HAW63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −60, Clock −4

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.