TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0728th
  Defense+0.0377th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%43rd
  Defense38.1%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.075th
  Defense+1.2246th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1988th
  Defense−0.0172nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense+0.0872nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%27th
  Defense41.2%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%75th
  Defense32.3%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2788th
  Defense2.5884th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%88th
  Defense22.9%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.6%37th
  Defense21.8%73rd

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, 2019

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2019

1. Max DugganQB398 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 57th of 228 QBs
   1.28WAR0.59 to 1.98
2. Darius AndersonRB148 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 78th of 349 RBs
   0.45WAR0.32 to 0.57
3. Sewo OloniluaRB130 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 86th of 349 RBs
   0.43WAR0.33 to 0.55
4. Jonathan SongPK17 plays · +0.521 pts/play · 23rd of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.20
5. Jalen ReagorWR75 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 164th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Taye BarberWR48 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 199th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Alex DeltonQB19 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 216th of 228 QBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Jordy SandyP50 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 60th of 100 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69269230th of 130Roster talent: 692, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022026th of 130Recruiting: 220, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%49th of 130Returning production: 69%, 49th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.7+6.742nd of 130SP+ rating: +6.7, 42nd 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, 2019

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 0.19 of the 0.22 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 KSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at TCU 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. vs BAYQ4 5:07 4th & 4 at BAY 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
3. at TTUQ4 14:56 4th & 2 at TTU 7, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at TTUQ4 2:36 4th & 10 at TTU 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. at OKSTQ3 0:58 4th & 5 at OKST 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs SMUQ4 2:35 4th & 3 at SMU 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at TTUQ4 5:38 4th & 3 at TTU 3, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs TEXQ2 6:51 4th & 2 at TCU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

123rd 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

   UAPB
2. W

   PUR
3. L

   SMU
4. W

   KU
5. L

   ISU
6. L

   KSU
7. W

   TEX
8. L

   OKST
9. L

   BAY
10. W

    TTU
11. L

    OU
12. L

    WVU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.39
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.59

Game by game

• UAPBW 39-7 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• PURW 34-13 at PUR61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• SMUL 38-41 vs SMU72% → 10%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• KUW 51-14 vs KU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16
• ISUL 24-49 at ISU45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +2
• KSUL 17-24 at KSU65% → 7%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −2
• TEXW 37-27 vs TEX51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −1
• OKSTL 27-34 at OKST51% → 3%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• BAYL 23-29 vs BAY46% → 25%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −19
• TTUW 33-31 at TTU63% → 81%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• OUL 24-28 at OU12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• WVUL 17-20 vs WVU85% → 5%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −54, 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.