Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1129th
  Defense+0.1169th
• 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.
  Offense43.2%54th
  Defense38.0%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1329th
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1151st
  Defense+0.0957th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1227th
  Defense+0.1665th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%57th
  Defense41.4%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%46th
  Defense31.3%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9754th
  Defense2.7167th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%17th
  Defense21.4%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense2.6%79th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Tennessee 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
   USU
2. W
   ARST
3. L
   OU
4. L
   UGA
5. L
   FLA
6. W
   UTC
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   SC
10. W
    UK
11. L
    MIZ
12. W
    VAN
13. W
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2014

1. Joshua DobbsQB231 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 64th of 199 QBs
   1.49WAR1.10 to 1.87
2. Justin WorleyQB212 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 125th of 199 QBs
   0.73WAR0.39 to 1.07
3. Jalen HurdRB184 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 41st of 350 RBs
   0.38WAR0.25 to 0.54
4. Pig HowardWR74 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 59th of 469 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.29
5. Matt DarrP61 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 14th of 94 punters
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.25
6. Aaron MedleyPK17 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 59th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Marlin LaneRB71 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 214th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Von PearsonWR45 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 232nd of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 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 Tennessee'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Tennessee's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.20 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 SCQ3 4:40 4th & 1 at SC 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. vs USUQ2 3:09 4th & 6 at USU 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at MISSQ2 9:27 4th & 1 at TENN 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs FLAQ2 8:26 4th & 3 at FLA 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at MISSQ2 6:17 4th & 1 at TENN 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at SCQ3 12:08 4th & 3 at SC 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at SCQ2 0:07 4th & 3 at SC 36, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs USUQ1 1:09 4th & 3 at USU 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

55th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Tennessee's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   USU
2. W

   ARST
3. L

   OU
4. L

   UGA
5. L

   FLA
6. W

   UTC
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   SC
10. W

    UK
11. L

    MIZ
12. W

    VAN
13. W

    IOWA

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Tennessee'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−0.07
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.22
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.11

Game by game

• USUW 38-7 vs USU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• ARSTW 34-19 vs ARST89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• OUL 10-34 at OU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• UGAL 32-35 at UGA14% → 7%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 9-10 vs FLA50% → 7%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• UTCW 45-10 vs UTC96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MISSL 3-34 at MISS15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• ALAL 20-34 vs ALA15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• SCW 45-42 at SC33% → 80%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +20
• UKW 50-16 vs UK71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• MIZL 21-29 vs MIZ67% → 3%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• VANW 24-17 at VAN89% → 95%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• IOWAW 45-28 vs IOWA63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Tennessee's side.

Closest call

TENN 45-42 SC (2014) - Tennessee dropped to a 3.2% win probability before pulling it out.