TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2376th
  Defense+0.0294th
• 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.
  Offense47.5%83rd
  Defense34.9%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2263rd
  Defense+1.2532nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2185th
  Defense−0.0594th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2664th
  Defense+0.1184th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.8%80th
  Defense39.9%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.2%93rd
  Defense26.9%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0971st
  Defense2.3195th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%60th
  Defense25.7%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense3.1%95th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. W
   SAM
2. W
   MINN
3. W
   SMU
4. W
   OU
5. L
   BAY
6. W
   OKST
7. W
   TTU
8. W
   WVU
9. W
   KSU
10. W
    KU
11. W
    TEX
12. W
    ISU
13. W
    MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2014

1. Trevone BoykinQB425 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 27th of 199 QBs
   1.99WAR1.40 to 2.60
2. Josh DoctsonWR70 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 14th of 469 WRs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.47
3. Aaron Green?85 plays · +0.157 pts/play
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. Jaden OberkromPK16 plays · +0.501 pts/play · 21st of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. B.J. Catalon?63 plays · +0.121 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Kolby ListenbeeWR54 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 181st of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
7. Ethan PerryP43 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 64th of 94 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.13
8. Kyle HicksRB9 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.21 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 OUQ3 2:18 4th & 1 at OU 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at BAYQ3 8:42 4th & 3 at BAY 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs OUQ4 11:25 4th & 3 at TCU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs KSUQ2 4:49 4th & 1 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs KSUQ2 0:50 4th & 1 at KSU 9, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at BAYQ3 2:15 4th & 3 at BAY 20, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at WVUQ2 4:46 4th & 2 at TCU 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at TEXQ3 10:36 4th & 23 at TEX 35, up 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

5th of 128 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. W

   SAM
2. W

   MINN
3. W

   SMU
4. W

   OU
5. L

   BAY
6. W

   OKST
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   WVU
9. W

   KSU
10. W

    KU
11. W

    TEX
12. W

    ISU
13. W

    MISS

What moved it, 2014

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+2.59
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• SAMW 48-14 vs SAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MINNW 30-7 vs MINN76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• SMUW 56-0 at SMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• OUW 37-33 vs OU36% → 87%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• BAYL 58-61 at BAY20% → 4%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −1
• OKSTW 42-9 vs OKST75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• TTUW 82-27 vs TTU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +12
• WVUW 31-30 at WVU59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• KSUW 41-20 vs KSU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −1
• KUW 34-30 at KU93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• TEXW 48-10 at TEX67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +1
• ISUW 55-3 vs ISU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MISSW 42-3 vs MISS55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +43

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.