Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0835th
  Defense+0.0475th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%29th
  Defense40.5%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2152nd
  Defense+1.2243rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0125th
  Defense+0.0560th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1849th
  Defense+0.0380th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%25th
  Defense44.5%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%56th
  Defense32.4%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7833rd
  Defense2.8652nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%22nd
  Defense20.4%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%47th
  Defense17.9%74th

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, 2018

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
   UTM
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   FAU
5. W
   MRSH
6. L
   FIU
7. W
   CLT
8. W
   ODU
9. W
   WKU
10. W
    UTEP
11. L
    UK
12. W
    UAB
13. L
    UAB
14. L
    APP

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

Players, 2018

1. Brent StockstillQB445 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 33rd of 225 QBs
   1.78WAR1.08 to 2.52
2. Tavares ThomasRB99 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 145th of 351 RBs
   0.30WAR0.22 to 0.36
3. Chaton MobleyRB86 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 170th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.21 to 0.31
4. Ty LeeWR76 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 28th of 434 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.35
5. Crews HoltPK20 plays · +0.360 pts/play · 26th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Brad AndersonRB40 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 266th of 351 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Gatlin CaseyWR51 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 227th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.15
8. Terelle WestRB44 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 272nd of 351 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41441491st of 130Roster talent: 414, 91st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912994th of 130Recruiting: 129, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%41st of 129Returning production: 76%, 41st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.8−3.891st of 130SP+ rating: −3.8, 91st of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 MRSHQ4 6:23 4th & 1 at MRSH 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
2. at FIUQ4 1:38 4th & 10 at FIU 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.7 pts
3. vs UABQ4 14:12 4th & 1 at MTSU 49, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
4. vs CLTQ3 7:50 4th & 2 at MTSU 46, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. at VANQ4 8:39 4th & 7 at VAN 10, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs WKUQ4 13:44 4th & 3 at WKU 11, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs CLTQ4 12:36 4th & 5 at CLT 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs FAUQ4 7:09 4th & 9 at FAU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

32nd 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

   UTM
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   FAU
5. W

   MRSH
6. L

   FIU
7. W

   CLT
8. W

   ODU
9. W

   WKU
10. W

    UTEP
11. L

    UK
12. W

    UAB
13. L

    UAB
14. L

    APP

What moved it, 2018

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+0.55
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• VANL 7-35 at VAN39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38
• UTMW 61-37 vs UTM91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• UGAL 7-49 at UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• FAUW 25-24 vs FAU45% → 73%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +7, Possession & field position +4
• MRSHW 34-24 at MRSH42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• FIUL 21-24 at FIU47% → 7%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position +1
• CLTW 21-13 vs CLT82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• ODUW 51-17 at ODU62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• WKUW 29-10 vs WKU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• UTEPW 48-32 at UTEP84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• UKL 23-34 at UK15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• UABW 27-3 vs UAB39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts −1
• UABL 25-27 vs UAB50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• APPL 13-45 vs APP37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37

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.