Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1569th
  Defense+0.0762nd
• 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.
  Offense44.8%67th
  Defense38.0%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1947th
  Defense+1.2142nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1480th
  Defense+0.0554th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2264th
  Defense+0.1160th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%58th
  Defense44.3%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.4%73rd
  Defense26.4%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8953rd
  Defense2.9433rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%57th
  Defense19.6%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%88th
  Defense2.0%54th

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, 2015

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
   BGSU
2. L
   OU
3. W
   WCU
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   ARK
6. W
   UGA
7. L
   ALA
8. W
   UK
9. W
   SC
10. W
    UNT
11. W
    MIZ
12. W
    VAN
13. W
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2015

1. Joshua DobbsQB405 plays · +0.337 pts/play · 16th of 205 QBs
   2.55WAR1.89 to 3.16
2. Jalen HurdRB244 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 15th of 333 RBs
   0.52WAR0.35 to 0.74
3. Alvin KamaraRB105 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 123rd of 333 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
4. Aaron MedleyPK26 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 26th of 115 kickers
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.24
5. Trevor DanielP46 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 35th of 92 punters
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Von PearsonWR50 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
7. Josh SmithWR31 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 199th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Josh MaloneWR37 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 267th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81181112th of 128Roster talent: 811, 12th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2812816th of 128Recruiting: 281, 6th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%9th of 127Returning production: 91%, 9th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.5+19.512th of 128SP+ rating: +19.5, 12th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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. vs SCQ4 1:23 4th & 1 at TENN 18, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs UGAQ4 10:24 4th & 9 at UGA 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs UGAQ4 1:48 4th & 1 at TENN 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at FLAQ3 11:07 4th & 2 at FLA 19, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at FLAQ2 3:13 4th & 2 at FLA 16, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs UGAQ2 7:57 4th & 2 at UGA 49, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MIZQ4 9:42 4th & 4 at TENN 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs UNTQ3 10:27 4th & 1 at TENN 44, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

72nd 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

   BGSU
2. L

   OU
3. W

   WCU
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   ARK
6. W

   UGA
7. L

   ALA
8. W

   UK
9. W

   SC
10. W

    UNT
11. W

    MIZ
12. W

    VAN
13. W

    NU

What moved it, 2015

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+0.45
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• BGSUW 59-30 vs BGSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• OUL 24-31 vs OU40% → 20%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −18
• WCUW 55-10 vs WCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• FLAL 27-28 at FLA48% → 28%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −2
• ARKL 20-24 vs ARK71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• UGAW 38-31 vs UGA49% → 88%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −2
• ALAL 14-19 at ALA20% → 4%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• UKW 52-21 at UK73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• SCW 27-24 vs SC89% → 93%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• UNTW 24-0 vs UNT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +3
• MIZW 19-8 at MIZ77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• VANW 53-28 vs VAN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• NUW 45-6 vs NU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +22

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.