TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1673rd
  Defense+0.0274th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%81st
  Defense34.4%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1329th
  Defense+1.412nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0650th
  Defense−0.0788th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3084th
  Defense+0.1061st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%76th
  Defense38.9%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.3%87th
  Defense27.2%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9152nd
  Defense2.1999th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%48th
  Defense24.3%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%50th
  Defense20.8%92nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2017

1. Kenny HillQB401 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 29th of 226 QBs
   1.69WAR1.05 to 2.39
2. Kyle HicksRB148 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 66th of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.27 to 0.49
3. Darius AndersonRB100 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 93rd of 352 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.39
4. Jalen ReagorWR42 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. John DiarseWR44 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 184th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. KaVontae TurpinWR53 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Desmon WhiteWR43 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 306th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Jaelan AustinWR18 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 352nd of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67367331st of 130Roster talent: 673, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620632nd of 130Recruiting: 206, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  101%101%2nd of 128Returning production: 101%, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.9+18.916th of 128SP+ rating: +18.9, 16th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.16 of the 0.23 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 TTUQ3 12:11 4th & 10 at TTU 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.2 pts
2. at ARKQ3 5:18 4th & 4 at ARK 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs TEXQ3 11:16 4th & 1 at TCU 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at ISUQ3 1:56 4th & 2 at TCU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ISUQ4 3:12 4th & 12 at ISU 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs TEXQ2 14:16 4th & 1 at TEX 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at ISUQ2 1:17 4th & 9 at ISU 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. at TTUQ2 4:52 4th & 10 at TTU 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

26th of 130 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

   JKST
2. W

   ARK
3. W

   SMU
4. W

   OKST
5. W

   WVU
6. W

   KSU
7. W

   KU
8. L

   ISU
9. W

   TEX
10. L

    OU
11. W

    TTU
12. W

    BAY
13. L

    OU
14. W

    STAN

What moved it, 2017

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+1.54
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.59

Game by game

• JKSTW 63-0 vs JKST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• ARKW 28-7 at ARK65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• SMUW 56-36 vs SMU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• OKSTW 44-31 at OKST27% → 98%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• WVUW 31-24 vs WVU85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 26-6 at KSU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• KUW 43-0 vs KU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ISUL 7-14 at ISU70% → 4%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• TEXW 24-7 vs TEX73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• OUL 20-38 at OU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• TTUW 27-3 at TTU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• BAYW 45-22 vs BAY96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• OUL 17-41 at OU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −34, Clock +1
• STANW 39-37 vs STAN62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +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.