Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• 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.
  Offense39.1%12th
  Defense48.0%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0712th
  Defense+0.9499th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0122nd
  Defense+0.1615th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.0575th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.0%18th
  Defense54.3%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.3%26th
  Defense31.5%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6522nd
  Defense3.551st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.2%3rd
  Defense14.6%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.6%4th
  Defense14.0%16th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   GT
2. W
   INST
3. L
   FLA
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   UGA
6. L
   SC
7. L
   ALA
8. L
   UK
9. W
   USM
10. L
    MIZ
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    VAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2017

1. Quinten DormadyQB122 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 133rd of 226 QBs
   0.44WAR0.22 to 0.66
2. John KellyRB173 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 80th of 352 RBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.49
3. Trevor DanielP48 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 3rd of 95 punters
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.34
4. Jarrett GuarantanoQB135 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 175th of 226 QBs
   0.21WAR−0.04 to 0.48
5. Ty ChandlerRB65 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 179th of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
6. Will McBrideQB41 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 193rd of 226 QBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
7. Brandon JohnsonWR43 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Aaron MedleyPK8 plays · +0.412 pts/play · 90th of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81781712th of 130Roster talent: 817, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2632638th of 130Recruiting: 263, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%122nd of 128Returning production: 22%, 122nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.2+1.267th of 128SP+ rating: +1.2, 67th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.04 of the 0.11 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 MASSQ4 2:04 4th & 2 at TENN 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at GTQ3 7:30 4th & 1 at TENN 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs LSUQ4 12:42 4th & 10 at LSU 11, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at FLAQ1 0:40 4th & 1 at TENN 28, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at GTQ2 14:02 4th & 4 at GT 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at GTQ2 0:07 4th & 2 at GT 44, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs LSUQ2 4:47 4th & 3 at LSU 28, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at FLAQ4 10:57 4th & 5 at FLA 26, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

109th of 130 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

   GT
2. W

   INST
3. L

   FLA
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   UGA
6. L

   SC
7. L

   ALA
8. L

   UK
9. W

   USM
10. L

    MIZ
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    VAN

What moved it, 2017

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−1.46
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• GTW 42-41 at GT61% → 50%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −11: Timeouts +21, Scoreboard +18
• INSTW 42-7 vs INST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FLAL 20-26 at FLA28% → 4%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 17-13 vs MASS95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 0-41 vs UGA18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24
• SCL 9-15 vs SC51% → 18%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• ALAL 7-45 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• UKL 26-29 at UK36% → 15%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• USMW 24-10 vs USM68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 17-50 at MIZ16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• LSUL 10-30 vs LSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• VANL 24-42 vs VAN52% → 2%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −53, Clock −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.