Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0735th
  Defense−0.0192nd
• 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.
  Offense40.3%33rd
  Defense40.8%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2757th
  Defense+1.3415th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0225th
  Defense−0.0693rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1732nd
  Defense+0.1858th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%23rd
  Defense43.5%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%58th
  Defense35.3%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.685th
  Defense2.6093rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%15th
  Defense24.8%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%29th
  Defense19.4%88th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   JMU
2. W
   CSU
3. W
   TNST
4. W
   MIA
5. L
   UTSA
6. L
   UAB
7. L
   WKU
8. W
   UTEP
9. L
   LT
10. W
    CLT
11. W
    FAU
12. W
    FIU
13. W
    SDSU

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

Players, 2022

1. Chase CunninghamQB440 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 54th of 234 QBs
   1.32WAR0.47 to 2.23
2. Frank PeasantRB162 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 63rd of 384 RBs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.50
3. Jaylin LaneWR67 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 13th of 455 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.43
4. Kyle UlbrichP61 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 3rd of 102 punters
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
5. Nicholas VattiatoQB53 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 186th of 234 QBs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.29
6. Izaiah GathingsWR57 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 181st of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
7. Darius BracyRB55 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 241st of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. DJ England-ChisolmWR24 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  425425102nd of 129Roster talent: 425, 102nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  129129109th of 129Recruiting: 129, 109th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%33rd of 128Returning production: 71%, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.9−6.988th of 129SP+ rating: −6.9, 88th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.04 of the 0.11 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. vs CLTQ3 6:29 4th & 1 at MTSU 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at CSUQ2 2:26 4th & 3 at CSU 18, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at CSUQ2 0:00 4th & 9 at MTSU 46, up 27Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
4. at FIUQ3 3:11 4th & 3 at MTSU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at CSUQ4 2:37 4th & 2 at CSU 41, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at SDSUQ2 9:59 4th & 19 at SDSU 37, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UABQ2 4:37 4th & 2 at MTSU 37, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs CLTQ4 2:53 4th & 4 at CLT 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

9th of 131 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

   JMU
2. W

   CSU
3. W

   TNST
4. W

   MIA
5. L

   UTSA
6. L

   UAB
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   UTEP
9. L

   LT
10. W

    CLT
11. W

    FAU
12. W

    FIU
13. W

    SDSU

What moved it, 2022

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+1.28
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.11
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• JMUL 7-44 at JMU42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• CSUW 34-19 at CSU19% → 98%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +61, Clock +2
• TNSTW 49-6 vs TNST89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• MIAW 45-31 at MIA4% → 99%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +95: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• UTSAL 30-45 vs UTSA34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• UABL 14-41 at UAB22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• WKUL 17-35 vs WKU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• UTEPW 24-13 at UTEP43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• LTL 24-40 at LT59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 24-14 vs CLT73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• FAUW 49-21 vs FAU34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +57, Possession & field position +1
• FIUW 33-28 at FIU90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• SDSUW 25-23 at SDSU33% → 75%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +32, 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.