TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1041st
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%37th
  Defense32.4%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2757th
  Defense+1.541st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense−0.0173rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0629th
  Defense+0.1560th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%45th
  Defense39.3%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%29th
  Defense21.2%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9559th
  Defense2.3894th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%31st
  Defense26.6%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%42nd
  Defense20.9%96th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   ISU
2. W
   TEX
3. L
   KSU
4. L
   OU
5. W
   BAY
6. W
   TTU
7. L
   WVU
8. W
   KU
9. W
   OKST
10. W
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2020

1. Max DugganQB308 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 45th of 212 QBs
   0.74WAR0.21 to 1.28
2. Darwin BarlowRB81 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 126th of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
3. Zach EvansRB41 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 225th of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
4. Taye BarberWR54 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 102nd of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
5. Quentin JohnstonWR33 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 133rd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Griffin KellPK15 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 20th of 97 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
7. Matthew DowningQB35 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 191st of 212 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
8. Jordy SandyP44 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 25th of 77 punters
   0.04WAR0.00 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71271228th of 127Roster talent: 712, 28th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521528th of 127Recruiting: 215, 28th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%50th of 127Returning production: 73%, 50th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.658th of 127SP+ rating: +1.6, 58th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.09 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 ISUQ2 0:04 4th & 18 at TCU 44, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. vs OKSTQ4 13:25 4th & 4 at midfield, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at BAYQ3 1:09 4th & 1 at TCU 34, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at KUQ2 3:35 4th & 3 at KU 38, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at KUQ3 12:58 4th & 2 at KU 47, up 26Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs OUQ1 10:28 4th & 17 at TCU 19, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs OUQ4 8:33 4th & 1 at TCU 19, down 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs KSUQ2 13:54 4th & 1 at TCU 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

44th of 127 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. L

   ISU
2. W

   TEX
3. L

   KSU
4. L

   OU
5. W

   BAY
6. W

   TTU
7. L

   WVU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   OKST
10. W

    LT

What moved it, 2020

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+0.17
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• ISUL 34-37 vs ISU40% → 18%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• TEXW 33-31 at TEX20% → 92%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• KSUL 14-21 vs KSU79% → 12%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −47, Clock −4
• OUL 14-33 vs OU34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• BAYW 33-23 at BAY57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• TTUW 34-18 vs TTU76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26
• WVUL 6-24 at WVU39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• KUW 59-23 at KU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• OKSTW 29-22 vs OKST43% → 89%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• LTW 52-10 vs LT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10

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.