TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2591st
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense47.1%86th
  Defense41.5%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2859th
  Defense+1.2362nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0428th
  Defense+0.1913th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4498th
  Defense+0.1164th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.1%91st
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%66th
  Defense26.6%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9538th
  Defense3.2623rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%39th
  Defense16.4%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%75th
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   STAN
2. W
   LIU
3. L
   UCF
4. L
   SMU
5. W
   KU
6. L
   HOU
7. W
   UTAH
8. W
   TTU
9. L
   BAY
10. W
    OKST
11. W
    ARIZ
12. W
    CIN
13. W
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2024

1. Josh HooverQB444 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 6th of 232 QBs
   2.47WAR1.66 to 3.36
2. Eric McAlisterWR36 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 25th of 452 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.32
3. Cam CookRB99 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 152nd of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.25
4. JP RichardsonWR51 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 93rd of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.28
5. Jack BechWR64 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 134th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.05 to 0.26
6. Trent BattleRB48 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 258th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Savion WilliamsWR106 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 166th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.08 to 0.24
8. Kyle LemmermannPK17 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 60th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76776728th of 131Roster talent: 767, 28th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420434th of 131Recruiting: 204, 34th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%53rd of 130Returning production: 54%, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.8+10.825th of 131SP+ rating: +10.8, 25th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 of the 0.15 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 BAYQ4 10:22 4th & 2 at BAY 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. at KUQ4 3:02 4th & 1 at KU 11, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at CINQ4 9:06 4th & 1 at TCU 29, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs ARIZQ2 0:13 4th & 1 at ARIZ 20, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at STANQ2 4:09 4th & 4 at STAN 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at UTAHQ2 1:32 4th & 2 at TCU 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at CINQ4 1:00 4th & 12 at CIN 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ULQ2 5:34 4th & 4 at UL 4, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

48th of 134 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

   STAN
2. W

   LIU
3. L

   UCF
4. L

   SMU
5. W

   KU
6. L

   HOU
7. W

   UTAH
8. W

   TTU
9. L

   BAY
10. W

    OKST
11. W

    ARIZ
12. W

    CIN
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2024

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+1.13
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.75

Game by game

• STANW 34-27 at STAN66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• LIUW 45-0 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UCFL 34-35 vs UCF58% → 35%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• SMUL 42-66 at SMU53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −49, Clock +1
• KUW 38-27 at KU45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• HOUL 19-30 vs HOU86% → 3%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• UTAHW 13-7 at UTAH43% → 94%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• TTUW 35-34 vs TTU62% → 81%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +4
• BAYL 34-37 at BAY44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• OKSTW 38-13 vs OKST75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• ARIZW 49-28 vs ARIZ78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26
• CINW 20-13 at CIN59% → 83%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +41, Clock +4
• ULW 34-3 vs UL77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26

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.