Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0520th
  Defense+0.1340th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%19th
  Defense47.3%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2671st
  Defense+1.0988th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.114th
  Defense+0.1133rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2569th
  Defense+0.1843rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%12th
  Defense52.7%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%50th
  Defense33.7%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.202nd
  Defense3.0824th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense33.2%1st
  Defense16.7%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%2nd
  Defense14.7%25th

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, 2018

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. L
   WVU
2. W
   ETSU
3. W
   UTEP
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   UGA
6. W
   AUB
7. L
   ALA
8. L
   SC
9. W
   CLT
10. W
    UK
11. L
    MIZ
12. L
    VAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2018

1. Jarrett GuarantanoQB213 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 89th of 225 QBs
   0.92WAR0.60 to 1.28
2. Ty ChandlerRB99 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 139th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.25 to 0.38
3. Tim JordanRB85 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 163rd of 351 RBs
   0.27WAR0.21 to 0.31
4. Marquez CallawayWR46 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 69th of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Brent CimagliaPK10 plays · +0.339 pts/play · 94th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
6. Josh PalmerWR33 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 315th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
7. Keller ChrystQB17 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 212th of 225 QBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Madre LondonRB13 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 286th of 351 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.04

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82782715th of 130Roster talent: 827, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25225214th of 130Recruiting: 252, 14th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%58th of 129Returning production: 66%, 58th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.5+5.548th of 130SP+ rating: +5.5, 48th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.15 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 AUBQ4 9:04 4th & 2 at AUB 2, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs WVUQ2 5:08 4th & 4 at WVU 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs UKQ2 12:49 4th & 3 at UK 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs CLTQ4 14:14 4th & 3 at CLT 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at AUBQ2 1:55 4th & 1 at TENN 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at VANQ2 10:33 4th & 3 at VAN 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at AUBQ4 2:39 4th & 5 at AUB 35, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at SCQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at TENN 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

64th 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. L

   WVU
2. W

   ETSU
3. W

   UTEP
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   UGA
6. W

   AUB
7. L

   ALA
8. L

   SC
9. W

   CLT
10. W

    UK
11. L

    MIZ
12. L

    VAN

What moved it, 2018

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−0.77
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• WVUL 14-40 vs WVU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• ETSUW 59-3 vs ETSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UTEPW 24-0 vs UTEP98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• FLAL 21-47 vs FLA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• UGAL 12-38 at UGA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• AUBW 30-24 at AUB14% → 95%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• ALAL 21-58 vs ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• SCL 24-27 at SC22% → 7%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts +1
• CLTW 14-3 vs CLT91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• UKW 24-7 vs UK41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 17-50 vs MIZ34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40
• VANL 13-38 at VAN43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +4

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.