TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2184th
  Defense+0.0566th
• 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.
  Offense48.5%87th
  Defense37.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2054th
  Defense+1.2428th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1166th
  Defense+0.0840th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3282nd
  Defense+0.0380th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.7%86th
  Defense43.0%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.0%77th
  Defense27.2%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1687th
  Defense2.8156th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%63rd
  Defense15.9%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense1.5%19th

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, 2015

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2015

1. Trevone BoykinQB353 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 46th of 205 QBs
   1.72WAR1.20 to 2.25
2. Aaron Green?177 plays · +0.157 pts/play
   0.52WAR0.34 to 0.70
3. Josh DoctsonWR78 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 14th of 411 WRs
   0.39WAR0.27 to 0.53
4. Bram KohlhausenQB67 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 149th of 205 QBs
   0.35WAR0.25 to 0.46
5. Jaden OberkromPK19 plays · +0.501 pts/play · 17th of 115 kickers
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
6. KaVontae TurpinWR52 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 205th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Shaun NixonWR53 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Kolby ListenbeeWR31 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 293rd of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63063039th of 128Roster talent: 630, 39th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19019042nd of 128Recruiting: 190, 42nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%12th of 127Returning production: 89%, 12th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.0+19.015th of 128SP+ rating: +19.0, 15th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.19 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 TTUQ4 4:44 4th & 8 at TCU 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at OKSTQ2 6:55 4th & 2 at OKST 44, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs KUQ4 6:19 4th & 1 at TCU 34, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs BAYQ4 5:04 4th & 4 at TCU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at MINNQ4 3:02 4th & 1 at MINN 44, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at OUQ3 6:15 4th & 1 at TCU 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at ISUQ2 6:22 4th & 1 at TCU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs BAYQ3 4:40 4th & 2 at TCU 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

23rd 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

   MINN
2. W

   SFA
3. W

   SMU
4. W

   TTU
5. W

   TEX
6. W

   KSU
7. W

   ISU
8. W

   WVU
9. L

   OKST
10. W

    KU
11. L

    OU
12. W

    BAY
13. W

    ORE

What moved it, 2015

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+1.36
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.39
• Timeouts−0.36
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• MINNW 23-17 at MINN87% → 91%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +23, Clock +2
• SFAW 70-7 vs SFA100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SMUW 56-37 vs SMU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• TTUW 55-52 at TTU74% → 83%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +31, Clock +3
• TEXW 50-7 vs TEX90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• KSUW 52-45 at KSU77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• ISUW 45-21 at ISU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• WVUW 40-10 vs WVU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• OKSTL 29-49 at OKST66% → 0%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −54, Clock −1
• KUW 23-17 vs KU99% → 96%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +4
• OUL 29-30 at OU11% → 17%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +1
• BAYW 28-21 vs BAY48% → 88%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −19
• OREW 47-41 vs ORE34% → 89%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −19

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.