Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0739th
  Defense+0.0177th
• 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.
  Offense42.0%40th
  Defense39.9%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2678th
  Defense+1.0985th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0129th
  Defense0.0070th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1139th
  Defense+0.0574th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%29th
  Defense44.5%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%71st
  Defense30.0%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8444th
  Defense2.5383rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%32nd
  Defense20.6%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%19th
  Defense17.3%63rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   VAN
2. W
   SYR
3. L
   MINN
4. W
   BGSU
5. L
   FAU
6. W
   FIU
7. L
   UAB
8. L
   MRSH
9. W
   UTEP
10. W
    CLT
11. L
    WKU
12. W
    ODU
13. W
    ARST

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

Players, 2017

1. Brent StockstillQB229 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 77th of 226 QBs
   0.99WAR0.57 to 1.38
2. John UrzuaQB228 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 118th of 226 QBs
   0.51WAR0.08 to 0.97
3. Brad AndersonRB116 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 115th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.34
4. Ty LeeWR139 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 13th of 426 WRs
   0.26WAR0.13 to 0.38
5. Tavares ThomasRB72 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 129th of 352 RBs
   0.25WAR0.20 to 0.31
6. Canon RookerPK15 plays · +0.568 pts/play · 17th of 110 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Richie JamesWR57 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 125th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
8. Patrick SmithWR38 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 237th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  345345101st of 130Roster talent: 345, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912986th of 130Recruiting: 129, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%30th of 128Returning production: 76%, 30th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.9−4.988th of 128SP+ rating: −4.9, 88th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.10 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. at UABQ3 3:56 4th & 3 at UAB 42, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at WKUQ4 13:50 4th & 4 at WKU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at WKUQ2 0:05 4th & 1 at MTSU 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs BGSUQ4 6:15 4th & 1 at BGSU 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs BGSUQ4 11:44 4th & 2 at BGSU 24, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs MRSHQ1 0:39 4th & 1 at MTSU 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MRSHQ3 6:10 4th & 8 at MRSH 12, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at SYRQ2 2:48 4th & 3 at MTSU 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

71st of 130 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. L

   VAN
2. W

   SYR
3. L

   MINN
4. W

   BGSU
5. L

   FAU
6. W

   FIU
7. L

   UAB
8. L

   MRSH
9. W

   UTEP
10. W

    CLT
11. L

    WKU
12. W

    ODU
13. W

    ARST

What moved it, 2017

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+0.03
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• VANL 6-28 vs VAN40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• SYRW 30-23 at SYR25% → 94%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• MINNL 3-34 at MINN19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• BGSUW 24-13 vs BGSU70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• FAUL 20-38 at FAU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• FIUW 37-17 vs FIU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30
• UABL 23-25 at UAB62% → 19%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• MRSHL 10-38 vs MRSH48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• UTEPW 30-3 vs UTEP92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• CLTW 35-21 at CLT86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• WKUL 38-41 at WKU55% → 21%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• ODUW 41-10 vs ODU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• ARSTW 35-30 at ARST40% → 91%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3

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.