Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1667th
  Defense+0.1632nd
• 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.
  Offense44.0%53rd
  Defense47.2%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2360th
  Defense+1.1282nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1061st
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2463rd
  Defense+0.2429th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%53rd
  Defense52.9%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%53rd
  Defense33.2%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0772nd
  Defense3.0431st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%43rd
  Defense18.8%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%39th
  Defense19.9%49th

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, 2019

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
   MICH
2. W
   TNST
3. L
   DUKE
4. L
   IOWA
5. W
   MRSH
6. L
   FAU
7. L
   UNT
8. W
   FIU
9. L
   CLT
10. L
    RICE
11. W
    ODU
12. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2019

1. Asher O'HaraQB362 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 18th of 228 QBs
   1.88WAR1.28 to 2.47
2. Ty LeeWR55 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 136th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
3. Terelle WestRB31 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 258th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.13
4. Jimmy MarshallWR40 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 192nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Chaton MobleyRB36 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 263rd of 349 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Jarrin PierceWR44 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Crews HoltPK11 plays · +0.375 pts/play · 91st of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Zack DobsonWR13 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 383rd of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45145192nd of 130Roster talent: 451, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13413493rd of 130Recruiting: 134, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%101st of 130Returning production: 41%, 101st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.3−11.3110th of 130SP+ rating: −11.3, 110th 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, 2019

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.05 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 WKUQ2 0:30 4th & 3 at WKU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
2. vs FIUQ2 3:03 4th & 5 at FIU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs RICEQ3 13:22 4th & 7 at RICE 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs MRSHQ4 4:29 4th & 6 at MRSH 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at WKUQ2 9:38 4th & 13 at WKU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs FIUQ4 12:09 4th & 1 at MTSU 47, up 26Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs DUKEQ4 7:35 4th & 12 at DUKE 19, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MRSHQ1 4:06 4th & 3 at MRSH 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

98th 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

   MICH
2. W

   TNST
3. L

   DUKE
4. L

   IOWA
5. W

   MRSH
6. L

   FAU
7. L

   UNT
8. W

   FIU
9. L

   CLT
10. L

    RICE
11. W

    ODU
12. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• MICHL 21-40 at MICH1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• TNSTW 45-26 vs TNST95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +10
• DUKEL 18-41 vs DUKE34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• IOWAL 3-48 at IOWA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• MRSHW 24-13 vs MRSH35% → 97%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• FAUL 13-28 at FAU18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• UNTL 30-33 at UNT26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −1
• FIUW 50-17 vs FIU43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +1
• CLTL 20-34 at CLT57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• RICEL 28-31 vs RICE82% → 6%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• ODUW 38-17 vs ODU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• WKUL 26-31 at WKU22% → 4%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1

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.