Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2691st
  Defense+0.1637th
• 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.
  Offense48.0%88th
  Defense41.8%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2853rd
  Defense+1.3519th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2179th
  Defense+0.1726th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3376th
  Defense+0.2149th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.5%90th
  Defense44.4%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%56th
  Defense36.9%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3985th
  Defense3.2133rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.8%95th
  Defense16.5%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%93rd
  Defense17.9%73rd

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, 2021

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
   BGSU
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   TNTC
4. L
   FLA
5. W
   MIZ
6. W
   SC
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   UK
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    USA
12. W
    VAN
13. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2021

1. Hendon HookerQB327 plays · +0.349 pts/play · 25th of 219 QBs
   2.14WAR1.57 to 2.78
2. Jabari SmallRB99 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 133rd of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.42
3. Cedric TillmanWR53 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 66th of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.26
4. Velus Jones Jr.WR53 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 151st of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Paxton BrooksPK33 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 17th of 128 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
6. JaVonta PaytonWR22 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 294th of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Chase McGrathPK12 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 80th of 128 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jalin HyattWR16 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 379th of 474 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78178119th of 130Roster talent: 781, 19th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25125116th of 130Recruiting: 251, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%123rd of 128Returning production: 31%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.5+17.510th of 130SP+ rating: +17.5, 10th 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 PURQ4 0:06 4th & 3 at PUR 42, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
2. vs MISSQ4 0:54 4th & 24 at TENN 36, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at PURQ4 3:37 4th & 13 at PUR 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at ALAQ2 7:52 4th & 1 at TENN 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at PURQ3 3:44 4th & 4 at PUR 13, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UGAQ3 1:05 4th & 13 at UGA 39, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs PITTQ1 4:44 4th & 3 at PITT 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MISSQ2 2:26 4th & 15 at MISS 40, down 15Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

68th 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

   BGSU
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   TNTC
4. L

   FLA
5. W

   MIZ
6. W

   SC
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   UK
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    USA
12. W

    VAN
13. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2021

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−0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.19
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• BGSUW 38-6 vs BGSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• PITTL 34-41 vs PITT34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• TNTCW 56-0 vs TNTC99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +4
• FLAL 14-38 at FLA11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• MIZW 62-24 at MIZ39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +61
• SCW 45-20 vs SC76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• MISSL 26-31 vs MISS42% → 9%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −8
• ALAL 24-52 at ALA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• UKW 45-42 at UK53% → 91%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• UGAL 17-41 vs UGA8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• USAW 60-14 vs USA96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• VANW 45-21 vs VAN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• PURL 45-48 at PUR65% → 20%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25

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.