TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2283rd
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense47.4%89th
  Defense43.5%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3069th
  Defense+1.3224th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1673rd
  Defense+0.1237th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3884th
  Defense+0.3021st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%72nd
  Defense47.4%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.7%98th
  Defense34.7%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3381st
  Defense3.1733rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.1%78th
  Defense15.6%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%91st
  Defense12.8%5th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   COLO
2. W
   NICH
3. W
   HOU
4. W
   SMU
5. L
   WVU
6. L
   ISU
7. W
   BYU
8. L
   KSU
9. L
   TTU
10. L
    TEX
11. W
    BAY
12. L
    OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2023

1. Josh HooverQB218 plays · +0.309 pts/play · 72nd of 250 QBs
   1.26WAR0.75 to 1.85
2. Chandler MorrisQB194 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 111th of 250 QBs
   0.75WAR0.33 to 1.23
3. Emani BaileyRB194 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 45th of 383 RBs
   0.38WAR0.20 to 0.54
4. Jared WileyTE51 plays · +0.306 pts/play · 1st of 212 TEs
   0.29WAR0.16 to 0.41
5. JP RichardsonWR50 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 184th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.02 to 0.24
6. Griffin KellPK15 plays · +0.334 pts/play · 42nd of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Jordy SandyP33 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 59th of 103 punters
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
8. Jaylon RobinsonWR28 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 270th of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76876819th of 130Roster talent: 768, 19th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420433rd of 130Recruiting: 204, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%121st of 128Returning production: 14%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.9+7.935th of 130SP+ rating: +7.9, 35th 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, 2023

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 0.12 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 COLOQ4 0:55 4th & 9 at COLO 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
2. vs WVUQ4 4:47 4th & 1 at WVU 28, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at TTUQ4 11:46 4th & 7 at TTU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at ISUQ4 9:25 4th & 12 at ISU 30, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at TTUQ2 9:21 4th & 2 at TTU 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs SMUQ2 1:23 4th & 1 at TCU 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at HOUQ2 5:37 4th & 6 at HOU 35, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs BYUQ1 6:26 4th & 1 at TCU 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

124th of 133 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

   COLO
2. W

   NICH
3. W

   HOU
4. W

   SMU
5. L

   WVU
6. L

   ISU
7. W

   BYU
8. L

   KSU
9. L

   TTU
10. L

    TEX
11. W

    BAY
12. L

    OU

What moved it, 2023

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−1.50
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.48

Game by game

• COLOL 42-45 vs COLO91% → 6%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• NICHW 41-6 vs NICH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• HOUW 36-13 at HOU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• SMUW 34-17 vs SMU68% → 98%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• WVUL 21-24 vs WVU80% → 6%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• ISUL 14-27 at ISU64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −1
• BYUW 44-11 vs BYU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• KSUL 3-41 at KSU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +2
• TTUL 28-35 at TTU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• TEXL 26-29 vs TEX19% → 6%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• BAYW 42-17 vs BAY77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• OUL 45-69 at OU18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22

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.