Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1666th
  Defense+0.1148th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%79th
  Defense43.6%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2253rd
  Defense+1.1663rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1365th
  Defense+0.1621st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2162nd
  Defense+0.0876th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%83rd
  Defense49.8%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%57th
  Defense31.4%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2888th
  Defense2.9551st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%83rd
  Defense21.7%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%28th
  Defense17.9%72nd

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, 2016

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
   APP
2. W
   VT
3. W
   OHIO
4. W
   FLA
5. W
   UGA
6. L
   TA&M
7. L
   ALA
8. L
   SC
9. W
   TNTC
10. W
    UK
11. W
    MIZ
12. L
    VAN
13. W
    NEB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2016

1. Joshua DobbsQB453 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 7th of 218 QBs
   2.49WAR1.76 to 3.21
2. Trevor DanielP60 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 1st of 82 punters
   0.40WAR0.25 to 0.57
3. Alvin KamaraRB143 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 99th of 347 RBs
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.50
4. Jalen HurdRB121 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 118th of 347 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.42
5. Josh MaloneWR60 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 59th of 417 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
6. John KellyRB64 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 171st of 347 RBs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.28
7. Jauan JenningsWR63 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 110th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
8. Aaron MedleyPK12 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 97th of 116 kickers
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81481414th of 128Roster talent: 814, 14th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2722728th of 128Recruiting: 272, 8th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%22nd of 128Returning production: 88%, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.3+16.315th of 128SP+ rating: +16.3, 15th 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, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 UGAQ4 3:43 4th & 6 at UGA 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at SCQ3 13:05 4th & 3 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs FLAQ4 0:00 4th & 9 at FLA 9, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs FLAQ4 3:10 4th & 4 at FLA 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at VANQ2 6:33 4th & 4 at VAN 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs NEBQ2 2:48 4th & 6 at NEB 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs NEBQ4 1:27 4th & 4 at NEB 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MIZQ1 4:54 4th & 1 at TENN 42, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

84th 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

   APP
2. W

   VT
3. W

   OHIO
4. W

   FLA
5. W

   UGA
6. L

   TA&M
7. L

   ALA
8. L

   SC
9. W

   TNTC
10. W

    UK
11. W

    MIZ
12. L

    VAN
13. W

    NEB

What moved it, 2016

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+0.64
• Possession & field position+0.09
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.22

Game by game

• APPW 20-13 vs APP94% → 90%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −4: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −7
• VTW 45-24 vs VT76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28
• OHIOW 28-19 vs OHIO97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +9
• FLAW 38-28 vs FLA75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• UGAW 34-31 at UGA57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• TA&ML 38-45 at TA&M38% → 20%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +20
• ALAL 10-49 vs ALA32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37
• SCL 21-24 at SC85% → 17%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +2
• TNTCW 55-0 vs TNTC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• UKW 49-36 vs UK79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• MIZW 63-37 vs MIZ86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• VANL 34-45 at VAN80% → 3%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• NEBW 38-24 vs NEB60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +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.