Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0717th
  Defense+0.0978th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%22nd
  Defense42.2%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3064th
  Defense+1.2648th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.0954th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2039th
  Defense+0.2247th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%26th
  Defense46.0%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%22nd
  Defense34.2%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9128th
  Defense3.3814th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%30th
  Defense12.8%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%27th
  Defense20.4%96th

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, 2021

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
   MONM
2. L
   VT
3. L
   UTSA
4. L
   CLT
5. W
   MRSH
6. L
   LIB
7. W
   CONN
8. W
   USM
9. L
   WKU
10. W
    FIU
11. L
    ODU
12. W
    FAU
13. W
    TOL

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

Players, 2021

1. Nicholas VattiatoQB154 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 103rd of 219 QBs
   0.77WAR0.49 to 1.07
2. Chase CunninghamQB158 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 110th of 219 QBs
   0.67WAR0.33 to 0.99
3. Mike DiLielloQB63 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 163rd of 219 QBs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.43
4. Kyle UlbrichP41 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 14th of 101 punters
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Yusuf AliWR37 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 187th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
6. Jarrin PierceWR37 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 206th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Frank PeasantRB32 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 283rd of 387 RBs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.13
8. Chaton MobleyRB34 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 291st of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49449481st of 130Roster talent: 494, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  134134102nd of 130Recruiting: 134, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%93rd of 128Returning production: 58%, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.0−4.090th of 130SP+ rating: −4.0, 90th 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 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 FAUQ2 0:03 4th & 21 at MTSU 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.9 pts
2. at CLTQ3 11:17 4th & 4 at CLT 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs MRSHQ1 1:59 4th & 1 at MTSU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at VTQ3 10:56 4th & 8 at VT 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs ODUQ2 1:28 4th & 4 at ODU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs MRSHQ4 4:15 4th & 8 at MRSH 36, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at LIBQ3 8:07 4th & 10 at LIB 31, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs ODUQ2 10:07 4th & 5 at ODU 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

21st 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. W

   MONM
2. L

   VT
3. L

   UTSA
4. L

   CLT
5. W

   MRSH
6. L

   LIB
7. W

   CONN
8. W

   USM
9. L

   WKU
10. W

    FIU
11. L

    ODU
12. W

    FAU
13. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2021

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+1.17
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• MONMW 50-15 vs MONM72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• VTL 14-35 at VT9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• UTSAL 13-27 at UTSA17% → 2%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +1
• CLTL 39-42 at CLT38% → 7%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +1
• MRSHW 34-28 vs MRSH23% → 97%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +4
• LIBL 13-41 at LIB8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• CONNW 44-13 at CONN81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• USMW 35-10 vs USM81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• WKUL 21-48 at WKU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• FIUW 50-10 vs FIU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34
• ODUL 17-24 vs ODU57% → 8%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• FAUW 27-17 at FAU34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• TOLW 31-24 at TOL20% → 95%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +56, 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.