TCU

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1773rd
  Defense+0.0854th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%65th
  Defense40.3%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2869th
  Defense+1.2929th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0438th
  Defense+0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3587th
  Defense+0.2233rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%60th
  Defense44.3%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%84th
  Defense31.7%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7017th
  Defense2.8458th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%16th
  Defense17.3%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%53rd
  Defense14.9%36th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UNC
2. W
   ACU
3. W
   SMU
4. L
   ASU
5. W
   COLO
6. L
   KSU
7. W
   BAY
8. W
   WVU
9. L
   ISU
10. L
    BYU
11. W
    HOU
12. W
    CIN
13. W
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for TCU.

Players, 2025

1. Josh HooverQB406 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 17th of 231 QBs
   1.97WAR1.16 to 2.73
2. Eric McAlisterWR102 plays · +0.298 pts/play · 2nd of 451 WRs
   0.57WAR0.33 to 0.81
3. Jordan DwyerWR72 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 41st of 451 WRs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.39
4. Jeremy PayneRB120 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 85th of 365 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.31
5. Ken SealsQB46 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 175th of 231 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.23
6. Joseph Manjack IVWR53 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 123rd of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
7. Kevorian BarnesRB96 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 198th of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Trent BattleRB68 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 219th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74574532nd of 134Roster talent: 745, 32nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21821827th of 134Recruiting: 218, 27th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%28th of 132Returning production: 57%, 28th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.3+8.337th of 134SP+ rating: +8.3, 37th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.05 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. at HOUQ3 0:21 4th & 2 at TCU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
2. vs ISUQ4 6:32 4th & 3 at TCU 28, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
3. vs BAYQ4 10:15 4th & 2 at TCU 24, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. vs COLOQ4 0:19 4th & 6 at COLO 21, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts
5. at WVUQ3 11:53 4th & 7 at WVU 40, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs SMUQ4 0:57 4th & 15 at SMU 29, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs SMUQ4 0:57 4th & 15 at SMU 29, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
8. vs CINQ3 8:03 4th & 4 at CIN 45, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

51st of 136 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

   UNC
2. W

   ACU
3. W

   SMU
4. L

   ASU
5. W

   COLO
6. L

   KSU
7. W

   BAY
8. W

   WVU
9. L

   ISU
10. L

    BYU
11. W

    HOU
12. W

    CIN
13. W

    USC

What moved it, 2025

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+1.22
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.80
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• UNCW 48-14 at UNC63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• ACUW 42-21 vs ACU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +3
• SMUW 35-24 vs SMU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• ASUL 24-27 at ASU43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• COLOW 35-21 vs COLO86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• KSUL 28-41 at KSU57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• BAYW 42-36 vs BAY57% → 52%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −5: Timeouts −48, Scoreboard +42
• WVUW 23-17 at WVU88% → 94%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• ISUL 17-20 vs ISU69% → 13%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• BYUL 13-44 at BYU45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −44, Clock +1
• HOUW 17-14 at HOU53% → 93%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• CINW 45-23 vs CIN61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39, Clock −1
• USCW 30-27 vs USC38% → 76%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −27

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.