Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1147th
  Defense+0.1828th
• 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.
  Offense43.2%56th
  Defense48.3%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1923rd
  Defense+1.1096th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1366th
  Defense+0.0554th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0933rd
  Defense+0.3315th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%69th
  Defense53.4%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%23rd
  Defense35.2%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1374th
  Defense2.6179th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%76th
  Defense22.1%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%55th
  Defense14.9%31st

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   SC
2. W
   MIZ
3. L
   UGA
4. L
   UK
5. L
   ALA
6. L
   ARK
7. L
   AUB
8. L
   FLA
9. W
   VAN
10. L
    TA&M

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2020

1. Eric GrayRB157 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 21st of 338 RBs
   0.53WAR0.41 to 0.63
2. Jarrett GuarantanoQB168 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 72nd of 212 QBs
   0.47WAR0.13 to 0.80
3. Ty ChandlerRB92 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 88th of 338 RBs
   0.32WAR0.26 to 0.39
4. Josh PalmerWR52 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 83rd of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
5. J.T. ShroutQB26 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 179th of 212 QBs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
6. Paxton BrooksPK44 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 10th of 97 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Brent CimagliaPK9 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 55th of 97 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Harrison BaileyQB50 plays · +0.031 pts/play · 195th of 212 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.07 to 0.14

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84484413th of 127Roster talent: 844, 13th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25025018th of 127Recruiting: 250, 18th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%83rd of 127Returning production: 54%, 83rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.9+0.963rd of 127SP+ rating: +0.9, 63rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.05 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 SCQ3 7:54 4th & 1 at SC 29, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs UKQ3 13:13 4th & 1 at TENN 30, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at AUBQ2 13:42 4th & 2 at AUB 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs UKQ4 7:19 4th & 8 at UK 10, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at SCQ4 8:06 4th & 6 at SC 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ARKQ2 1:57 4th & 3 at ARK 31, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs FLAQ4 0:27 4th & 10 at FLA 22, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at SCQ1 2:06 4th & 3 at SC 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

113th of 127 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

   SC
2. W

   MIZ
3. L

   UGA
4. L

   UK
5. L

   ALA
6. L

   ARK
7. L

   AUB
8. L

   FLA
9. W

   VAN
10. L

    TA&M

What moved it, 2020

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−1.33
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.04

Game by game

• SCW 31-27 at SC64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• MIZW 35-12 vs MIZ80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• UGAL 21-44 at UGA22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• UKL 7-34 vs UK70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −63, Clock −2
• ALAL 17-48 vs ALA9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• ARKL 13-24 at ARK57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +2
• AUBL 17-30 at AUB23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 19-31 vs FLA13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• VANW 42-17 at VAN87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• TA&ML 13-34 vs TA&M17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −25, Clock −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.