Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0520th
  Defense+0.285th
• 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%22nd
  Defense49.4%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2543rd
  Defense+1.2844th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0116th
  Defense+0.1717th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1028th
  Defense+0.414th
• 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%32nd
  Defense55.1%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.9%8th
  Defense33.7%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8223rd
  Defense3.1927th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%7th
  Defense17.8%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%17th
  Defense13.9%17th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   TNTC
2. L
   MISS
3. L
   WKU
4. L
   DUKE
5. L
   MEM
6. L
   LT
7. W
   KENN
8. L
   JXST
9. W
   UTEP
10. L
    LIB
11. L
    NMSU
12. L
    FIU

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

Players, 2024

1. Nicholas VattiatoQB302 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 95th of 232 QBs
   0.91WAR0.44 to 1.41
2. Holden WillisTE31 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 7th of 221 TEs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
3. Jekail MiddlebrookRB57 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 191st of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
4. Jaiden CredleRB92 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 202nd of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Omari KellyWR35 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 142nd of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
6. Zeke RankinPK7 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 98th of 114 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Terry WilkinsRB7 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 319th of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  503503112th of 131Roster talent: 503, 112th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  110110118th of 131Recruiting: 110, 118th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%49th of 130Returning production: 56%, 49th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −24.4−24.4128th of 131SP+ rating: −24.4, 128th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 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 UTEPQ3 2:42 4th & 2 at UTEP 10, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs TNTCQ4 9:04 4th & 1 at TNTC 16, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at UTEPQ3 9:28 4th & 8 at UTEP 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs NMSUQ4 12:41 4th & 5 at NMSU 19, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs DUKEQ2 0:10 4th & 12 at DUKE 39, down 25Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UTEPQ4 9:13 4th & 6 at UTEP 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs LIBQ1 3:42 4th & 1 at MTSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at MEMQ2 2:54 4th & 4 at MEM 45, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

103rd of 134 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

   TNTC
2. L

   MISS
3. L

   WKU
4. L

   DUKE
5. L

   MEM
6. L

   LT
7. W

   KENN
8. L

   JXST
9. W

   UTEP
10. L

    LIB
11. L

    NMSU
12. L

    FIU

What moved it, 2024

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−1.49
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.06
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.12

Game by game

• TNTCW 32-25 vs TNTC71% → 92%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +3
• MISSL 3-52 at MISS1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• WKUL 21-49 vs WKU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• DUKEL 17-45 vs DUKE16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• MEML 7-24 at MEM4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• LTL 21-48 at LT40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +1
• KENNW 14-5 vs KENN76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27
• JXSTL 20-42 at JXST11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• UTEPW 20-13 at UTEP48% → 85%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +4
• LIBL 17-37 vs LIB19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• NMSUL 21-36 vs NMSU70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −62, Timeouts −2
• FIUL 24-35 at FIU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +2

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.