Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0830th
  Defense+0.0573rd
• 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.
  Offense41.0%29th
  Defense42.6%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2671st
  Defense+1.1184th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0215th
  Defense+0.1133rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1950th
  Defense−0.0195th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.8%19th
  Defense46.6%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%47th
  Defense33.9%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7936th
  Defense3.1319th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%26th
  Defense16.0%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%49th
  Defense19.5%43rd

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, 2019

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
   GAST
2. L
   BYU
3. W
   UTC
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   UGA
6. W
   MSST
7. L
   ALA
8. W
   SC
9. W
   UAB
10. W
    UK
11. W
    MIZ
12. W
    VAN
13. W
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2019

1. Jarrett GuarantanoQB244 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 87th of 228 QBs
   0.92WAR0.48 to 1.36
2. Ty ChandlerRB119 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 107th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.48
3. Jauan JenningsWR81 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 11th of 439 WRs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.46
4. Brian MaurerQB70 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 174th of 228 QBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Brent CimagliaPK25 plays · +0.467 pts/play · 6th of 114 kickers
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
6. Eric GrayRB73 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 182nd of 349 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
7. Tim JordanRB75 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 212th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
8. Marquez CallawayWR43 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 104th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83083016th of 130Roster talent: 830, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24824816th of 130Recruiting: 248, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%8th of 130Returning production: 87%, 8th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.8+10.829th of 130SP+ rating: +10.8, 29th 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, 2019

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 0.10 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. at MIZQ3 8:40 4th & 1 at MIZ 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.9 pts
2. vs SCQ3 3:43 4th & 1 at TENN 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
3. vs MSSTQ3 6:12 4th & 2 at MSST 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
4. at UKQ2 5:29 4th & 3 at UK 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
5. vs BYUQ2 6:22 4th & 4 at BYU 33, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
6. vs MSSTQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at TENN 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. at UKQ2 9:19 4th & 3 at UK 9, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. vs VANQ3 13:15 4th & 2 at VAN 47, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

43rd 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

   GAST
2. L

   BYU
3. W

   UTC
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   UGA
6. W

   MSST
7. L

   ALA
8. W

   SC
9. W

   UAB
10. W

    UK
11. W

    MIZ
12. W

    VAN
13. W

    IU

What moved it, 2019

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+1.18
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• GASTL 30-38 vs GAST95% → 3%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −92: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• BYUL 26-29 vs BYU69% → 12%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −19
• UTCW 45-0 vs UTC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• FLAL 3-34 at FLA19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21
• UGAL 14-43 vs UGA7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• MSSTW 20-10 vs MSST42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 13-35 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• SCW 41-21 vs SC42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +52, Clock −1
• UABW 30-7 vs UAB86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• UKW 17-13 at UK52% → 89%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position −3
• MIZW 24-20 at MIZ51% → 94%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• VANW 28-10 vs VAN95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• IUW 23-22 vs IU62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2

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.