Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0954th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%20th
  Defense42.7%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3792nd
  Defense+1.1877th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0739th
  Defense−0.0488th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2040th
  Defense+0.2730th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%39th
  Defense47.6%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.8%18th
  Defense31.5%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0844th
  Defense2.9668th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%34th
  Defense19.9%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%35th
  Defense16.9%58th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ALA
2. L
   MIZ
3. W
   MUR
4. L
   CSU
5. L
   WKU
6. L
   JXST
7. W
   LT
8. L
   LIB
9. L
   NMSU
10. W
    FIU
11. W
    UTEP
12. L
    SHSU

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

Players, 2023

1. Nicholas VattiatoQB472 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 76th of 250 QBs
   1.22WAR0.37 to 2.19
2. Holden WillisTE44 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 9th of 212 TEs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
3. Elijah MetcalfWR51 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 69th of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
4. Frank PeasantRB93 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 162nd of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
5. Jaiden CredleRB95 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 199th of 383 RBs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.19
6. DJ England-ChisolmWR21 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 201st of 457 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Justin OlsonWR38 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 220th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Zeke RankinPK12 plays · +0.301 pts/play · 78th of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48848890th of 130Roster talent: 488, 90th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115117th of 130Recruiting: 115, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%102nd of 128Returning production: 34%, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.5−9.599th of 130SP+ rating: −9.5, 99th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 SHSUQ4 10:22 4th & 1 at MTSU 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
2. vs UTEPQ4 5:12 4th & 7 at UTEP 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at MIZQ4 6:57 4th & 13 at MIZ 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs JXSTQ4 4:12 4th & 5 at JXST 14, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs JXSTQ3 8:12 4th & 2 at MTSU 43, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs FIUQ3 5:05 4th & 1 at MTSU 20, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UTEPQ4 14:55 4th & 4 at UTEP 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs CSUQ2 1:52 4th & 15 at CSU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

118th of 133 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

   ALA
2. L

   MIZ
3. W

   MUR
4. L

   CSU
5. L

   WKU
6. L

   JXST
7. W

   LT
8. L

   LIB
9. L

   NMSU
10. W

    FIU
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    SHSU

What moved it, 2023

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−1.19
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• ALAL 7-56 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MIZL 19-23 at MIZ6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• MURW 35-14 vs MUR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• CSUL 23-31 vs CSU50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• WKUL 10-31 at WKU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +2
• JXSTL 30-45 vs JXST63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• LTW 31-23 vs LT55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• LIBL 35-42 at LIB15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• NMSUL 7-13 at NMSU34% → 16%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• FIUW 40-6 vs FIU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• UTEPW 34-30 vs UTEP70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• SHSUL 20-23 at SHSU57% → 19%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +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.