TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1565th
  Defense+0.1341st
• 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.
  Offense45.9%72nd
  Defense40.8%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1426th
  Defense+1.2039th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2494th
  Defense+0.1526th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1034th
  Defense+0.1358th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.9%86th
  Defense44.5%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%43rd
  Defense33.5%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2989th
  Defense3.1028th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%70th
  Defense16.1%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%61st
  Defense15.6%41st

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2016

1. Kenny HillQB450 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 33rd of 218 QBs
   1.76WAR0.97 to 2.43
2. Kyle HicksRB226 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 38th of 347 RBs
   0.56WAR0.34 to 0.80
3. Adam NunezP60 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 55th of 82 punters
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.23
4. Jaelan AustinWR32 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 204th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Taj WilliamsWR51 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. John DiarseWR38 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
7. Brandon HatfieldPK14 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 83rd of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. KaVontae TurpinWR32 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 300th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66666630th of 128Roster talent: 666, 30th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520532nd of 128Recruiting: 205, 32nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%123rd of 128Returning production: 24%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.034th of 128SP+ rating: +11.0, 34th 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, 2016

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 0.07 of the 0.16 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 TEXQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at TCU 32, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs KSUQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at TCU 37, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs TTUQ2 4:10 4th & 3 at TTU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs KSUQ3 7:12 4th & 1 at TCU 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at KUQ4 9:25 4th & 4 at KU 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at WVUQ2 2:28 4th & 2 at TCU 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 11:50 4th & 1 at UGA 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs ISUQ2 5:24 4th & 1 at TCU 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

118th 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

   SDST
2. L

   ARK
3. W

   ISU
4. W

   SMU
5. L

   OU
6. W

   KU
7. L

   WVU
8. L

   TTU
9. W

   BAY
10. L

    OKST
11. W

    TEX
12. L

    KSU
13. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2016

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−1.52
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.33
• Timeouts−0.41
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• SDSTW 59-41 vs SDST99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +4
• ARKL 38-41 vs ARK67% → 12%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• ISUW 41-20 vs ISU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• SMUW 33-3 at SMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• OUL 46-52 vs OU35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• KUW 24-23 at KU96% → 93%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• WVUL 10-34 at WVU33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• TTUL 24-27 vs TTU68% → 26%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −22
• BAYW 62-22 at BAY25% → 100%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +68, Clock +1
• OKSTL 6-31 vs OKST59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Clock −1
• TEXW 31-9 at TEX32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• KSUL 6-30 vs KSU62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• UGAL 23-31 vs UGA46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3

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.