TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2690th
  Defense+0.307th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%68th
  Defense47.5%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4094th
  Defense+1.3812th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2178th
  Defense+0.315th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4092nd
  Defense+0.4010th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%52nd
  Defense51.7%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%91st
  Defense36.6%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2471st
  Defense3.499th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%57th
  Defense12.5%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense12.0%3rd

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, 2021

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2021

1. Max DugganQB275 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 77th of 219 QBs
   1.27WAR0.72 to 1.85
2. Zach EvansRB96 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 94th of 387 RBs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.52
3. Chandler MorrisQB79 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 158th of 219 QBs
   0.35WAR0.19 to 0.48
4. Kendre MillerRB74 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 196th of 387 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
5. Emari DemercadoRB73 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 219th of 387 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
6. Quentin JohnstonWR44 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 115th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Derius DavisWR45 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 134th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
8. Jordy SandyP29 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 50th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69969935th of 130Roster talent: 699, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620633rd of 130Recruiting: 206, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%47th of 128Returning production: 84%, 47th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.6−0.681st of 130SP+ rating: −0.6, 81st 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 OUQ3 13:21 4th & 2 at TCU 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at OUQ3 4:38 4th & 4 at OU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs TEXQ2 7:19 4th & 3 at TEX 8, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at OUQ3 0:02 4th & 9 at OU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs DUQQ3 2:04 4th & 1 at DUQ 1, up 32Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs TEXQ2 1:52 4th & 5 at TCU 39, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at ISUQ1 8:51 4th & 1 at TCU 25, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at TTUQ3 10:05 4th & 5 at TTU 31, up 25Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

107th 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

   DUQ
2. W

   CAL
3. L

   SMU
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   TTU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   WVU
8. L

   KSU
9. W

   BAY
10. L

    OKST
11. W

    KU
12. L

    ISU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.61
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13

Game by game

• DUQW 45-3 vs DUQ99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CALW 34-32 vs CAL78% → 95%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +25
• SMUL 34-42 vs SMU77% → 3%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −59, Clock −4
• TEXL 27-32 vs TEX42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• TTUW 52-31 at TTU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• OUL 31-52 at OU19% → 96%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• WVUL 17-29 vs WVU61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• KSUL 12-31 at KSU40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +1
• BAYW 30-28 vs BAY33% → 94%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• OKSTL 17-63 at OKST24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27
• KUW 31-28 vs KU91% → 95%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• ISUL 14-48 at ISU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17

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.