Middle Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0630th
  Defense+0.1719th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%57th
  Defense44.6%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2244th
  Defense+1.2644th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0216th
  Defense0.0076th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1232nd
  Defense+0.367th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%62nd
  Defense49.7%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%41st
  Defense32.3%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9248th
  Defense2.6287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%14th
  Defense22.8%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%15th
  Defense15.7%50th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   APSU
2. L
   WIS
3. W
   NEV
4. L
   MRSH
5. L
   KENN
6. L
   MOST
7. L
   DEL
8. L
   JXST
9. L
   FIU
10. L
    WKU
11. W
    SHSU
12. W
    NMSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Nicholas VattiatoQB335 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 87th of 231 QBs
   0.92WAR0.29 to 1.49
2. Roman GaglianoQB146 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 125th of 231 QBs
   0.57WAR0.30 to 0.81
3. Jekail MiddlebrookRB171 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 25th of 365 RBs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.51
4. Cam'ron LacyWR51 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 133rd of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
5. Hunter TiptonTE43 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 20th of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Ashton LoganP54 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 8th of 100 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Myles ButlerWR59 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 172nd of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.22
8. Jacob HathawayPK15 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 73rd of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  521521110th of 134Roster talent: 521, 110th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122115th of 134Recruiting: 122, 115th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%39th of 132Returning production: 51%, 39th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.0−16.0125th of 134SP+ rating: −16.0, 125th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 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 WKUQ4 10:46 4th & 4 at WKU 4, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs JXSTQ2 5:17 4th & 1 at MTSU 36, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at WKUQ4 4:33 4th & 10 at MTSU 36, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs SHSUQ2 4:43 4th & 4 at SHSU 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs FIUQ3 0:56 4th & 6 at MTSU 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NMSUQ2 11:11 4th & 2 at NMSU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at DELQ2 2:13 4th & 4 at MTSU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at KENNQ4 3:54 4th & 11 at KENN 11, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

123rd of 136 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

   APSU
2. L

   WIS
3. W

   NEV
4. L

   MRSH
5. L

   KENN
6. L

   MOST
7. L

   DEL
8. L

   JXST
9. L

   FIU
10. L

    WKU
11. W

    SHSU
12. W

    NMSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.56
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.24
• Timeouts−0.14
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• APSUL 14-34 vs APSU88% → 0%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −67, Clock −4
• WISL 10-42 at WIS4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• NEVW 14-13 at NEV29% → 78%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• MRSHL 28-42 vs MRSH51% → 2%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• KENNL 16-24 at KENN38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +3
• MOSTL 20-22 vs MOST48% → 73%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −42
• DELL 28-31 at DEL32% → 7%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• JXSTL 21-24 vs JXST45% → 11%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +3
• FIUL 30-56 vs FIU55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• WKUL 26-42 at WKU21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• SHSUW 31-17 vs SHSU71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• NMSUW 31-24 at NMSU44% → 86%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +20

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.