TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.0474th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%31st
  Defense38.5%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.076th
  Defense+1.2433rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense+0.0557th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0520th
  Defense+0.0578th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%56th
  Defense42.7%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%5th
  Defense31.1%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7629th
  Defense2.6978th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%25th
  Defense23.1%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%22nd
  Defense16.0%47th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2018

1. Mike CollinsQB136 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 125th of 225 QBs
   0.62WAR0.42 to 0.82
2. Sewo OloniluaRB140 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 64th of 351 RBs
   0.47WAR0.33 to 0.58
3. Darius AndersonRB118 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 85th of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.51
4. Jalen ReagorWR111 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 30th of 434 WRs
   0.23WAR0.07 to 0.38
5. Grayson MuehlsteinQB90 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 184th of 225 QBs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.35
6. Taye BarberWR37 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 242nd of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Jonathan SongPK10 plays · +0.391 pts/play · 87th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. KaVontae TurpinWR33 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 299th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67267231st of 130Roster talent: 672, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521528th of 130Recruiting: 215, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%103rd of 129Returning production: 41%, 103rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.9+6.943rd of 130SP+ rating: +6.9, 43rd of 130 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, 2018

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 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 CALQ3 7:05 4th & 1 at CAL 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.0 pts
2. at BAYQ4 14:07 4th & 1 at BAY 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
3. vs ISUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at TCU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
4. vs TTUQ3 3:00 4th & 12 at TTU 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal2.0 pts
5. at TEXQ3 8:44 4th & 2 at TEX 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
6. vs TTUQ4 5:01 4th & 8 at TCU 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
7. vs ISUQ2 0:44 4th & 5 at ISU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
8. vs KSUQ2 11:26 4th & 1 at TCU 25, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

77th 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

   SOU
2. W

   SMU
3. L

   OSU
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   ISU
6. L

   TTU
7. L

   OU
8. L

   KU
9. W

   KSU
10. L

    WVU
11. W

    BAY
12. W

    OKST
13. W

    CAL

What moved it, 2018

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−0.45
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• SOUW 55-7 vs SOU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SMUW 42-12 at SMU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• OSUL 28-40 vs OSU16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• TEXL 16-31 at TEX50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• ISUW 17-14 vs ISU77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• TTUL 14-17 vs TTU73% → 6%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• OUL 27-52 vs OU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• KUL 26-27 at KU79% → 6%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• KSUW 14-13 vs KSU76% → 77%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +2
• WVUL 10-47 at WVU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• BAYW 16-9 at BAY46% → 96%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• OKSTW 31-24 vs OKST37% → 92%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• CALW 10-7 vs CAL51% → 79%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −24

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.