TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2590th
  Defense+0.0763rd
• 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.
  Offense43.6%57th
  Defense41.4%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4296th
  Defense+1.3222nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1782nd
  Defense+0.1038th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3482nd
  Defense+0.1178th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%58th
  Defense47.8%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%54th
  Defense27.4%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1661st
  Defense3.0055th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%59th
  Defense19.3%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%78th
  Defense16.8%59th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   COLO
2. W
   TAR
3. W
   SMU
4. W
   OU
5. W
   KU
6. W
   OKST
7. W
   KSU
8. W
   WVU
9. W
   TTU
10. W
    TEX
11. W
    BAY
12. W
    ISU
13. L
    KSU
14. W
    MICH
15. L
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2022

1. Max DugganQB483 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 10th of 234 QBs
   2.42WAR1.52 to 3.47
2. Kendre MillerRB211 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 11th of 384 RBs
   0.68WAR0.47 to 0.90
3. Quentin JohnstonWR81 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 19th of 455 WRs
   0.29WAR0.11 to 0.47
4. Emari DemercadoRB110 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 142nd of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
5. Taye BarberWR46 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 81st of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.28
6. Chandler MorrisQB24 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 189th of 234 QBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. Jordy SandyP56 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 14th of 102 punters
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
8. Griffin KellPK19 plays · +0.332 pts/play · 14th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71271232nd of 129Roster talent: 712, 32nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819837th of 129Recruiting: 198, 37th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%9th of 128Returning production: 85%, 9th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.3+24.36th of 129SP+ rating: +24.3, 6th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 SMUQ2 0:00 4th & 24 at TCU 31, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.5 pts
2. at WVUQ4 0:20 4th & 1 at WVU 29, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. vs KSUQ4 7:34 4th & 4 at KSU 24, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at SMUQ4 13:32 4th & 21 at SMU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs OKSTQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at OKST 17, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at BAYQ2 1:37 4th & 9 at BAY 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs KSUQ4 9:53 4th & 10 at KSU 46, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at TEXQ2 1:20 4th & 3 at TEX 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

3rd of 131 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

   COLO
2. W

   TAR
3. W

   SMU
4. W

   OU
5. W

   KU
6. W

   OKST
7. W

   KSU
8. W

   WVU
9. W

   TTU
10. W

    TEX
11. W

    BAY
12. W

    ISU
13. L

    KSU
14. W

    MICH
15. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2022

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+4.11
• Possession & field position+0.12
• Clock+0.48
• Timeouts−0.38
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• COLOW 38-13 at COLO82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• TARW 59-17 vs TAR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• SMUW 42-34 at SMU60% → 97%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• OUW 55-24 vs OU40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −1
• KUW 38-31 at KU73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• OKSTW 43-40 vs OKST64% → 86%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −20
• KSUW 38-28 vs KSU64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• WVUW 41-31 at WVU74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• TTUW 34-24 vs TTU73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• TEXW 17-10 at TEX29% → 96%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• BAYW 29-28 at BAY61% → 92%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• ISUW 62-14 vs ISU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• KSUL 28-31 vs KSU52% → 29%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −39, Clock +23
• MICHW 51-45 at MICH27% → 96%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• UGAL 7-65 at UGA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20

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.