TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1037th
  Defense−0.0791st
• 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.
  Offense42.3%40th
  Defense37.4%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2864th
  Defense+0.9599th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0711th
  Defense−0.1694th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2656th
  Defense+0.0575th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%76th
  Defense41.8%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.2%8th
  Defense27.9%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7320th
  Defense2.7564th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%35th
  Defense19.9%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%49th
  Defense17.5%72nd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 TCU 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
   UNC
2. W
   GRAM
3. W
   ARST
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2026

1. Jaden CraigQB141 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 86th of 192 QBs
   0.23WAR0.04 to 0.41
2. Jeremy PayneRB92 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 29th of 320 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
3. Ed SmallWR28 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 36th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.15
4. Kari AshleyTE21 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 5th of 164 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.10
5. Jeremy ScottWR11 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
6. Jon DenmanRB20 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 229th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. John Hoyet ChanceP14 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 12th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Jordan DwyerWR8 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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 TCU'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73173140th of 138Roster talent: 731, 40th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22322327th of 138Recruiting: 223, 27th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%95th of 136Returning production: 22%, 95th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.2+9.241st of 138SP+ rating so far: +9.2, 41st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 TCU's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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 ARSTQ2 1:49 4th & 1 at TCU 30, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs ARSTQ4 5:26 4th & 2 at ARST 11, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at UCFQ1 2:29 4th & 13 at UCF 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs ARSTQ1 10:01 4th & 13 at TCU 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs UNCQ2 13:16 4th & 10 at UNC 35, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs GRAMQ3 4:20 4th & 3 at TCU 45, up 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. vs BYUQ3 5:29 4th & 2 at TCU 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs ARSTQ4 1:52 4th & 6 at ARST 29, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

133rd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up TCU's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UNC
2. W

   GRAM
3. W

   ARST
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   BYU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at TCU'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−1.15
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• UNCL 10-15 vs UNC67% → 3%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• GRAMW 63-7 vs GRAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• ARSTW 31-7 vs ARST89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 13-21 at UCF60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• BYUL 10-17 vs BYU28% → 5%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from TCU's side.

Closest call

ORE 41-47 TCU (2015) - TCU dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.