Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.3297th
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense51.1%95th
  Defense41.4%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2656th
  Defense+1.2455th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense−0.1098th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4193rd
  Defense+0.2147th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.4%98th
  Defense45.6%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%61st
  Defense32.5%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2877th
  Defense2.6490th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.1%91st
  Defense23.2%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.3%98th
  Defense16.3%53rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   BALL
2. W
   PITT
3. W
   AKR
4. W
   FLA
5. W
   LSU
6. W
   ALA
7. W
   UTM
8. W
   UK
9. L
   UGA
10. W
    MIZ
11. L
    SC
12. W
    VAN
13. W
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2022

1. Hendon HookerQB307 plays · +0.375 pts/play · 19th of 234 QBs
   2.15WAR1.54 to 2.85
2. Jabari SmallRB116 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 94th of 384 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.39
3. Jalin HyattWR70 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 46th of 455 WRs
   0.22WAR0.09 to 0.35
4. Joe Milton IIIQB53 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 173rd of 234 QBs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.33
5. Jaylen WrightRB81 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 155th of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
6. Bru McCoyWR43 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 104th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Cedric TillmanWR38 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 168th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
8. Ramel KeytonWR30 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76576519th of 129Roster talent: 765, 19th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25125114th of 129Recruiting: 251, 14th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%26th of 128Returning production: 76%, 26th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.2+25.25th of 129SP+ rating: +25.2, 5th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 one accounts for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 CLEMQ4 8:50 4th & 6 at TENN 41, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.7 pts
2. at UGAQ4 9:07 4th & 10 at UGA 23, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
3. vs CLEMQ4 3:07 4th & 3 at CLEM 15, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
4. vs UKQ2 2:49 4th & 8 at UK 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
5. at UGAQ4 4:32 4th & 8 at UGA 33, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts
6. at LSUQ2 8:19 4th & 10 at LSU 38, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
7. at SCQ4 7:19 4th & 1 at SC 13, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.2 pts
8. vs MIZQ4 13:14 4th & 1 at TENN 26, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

21st of 131 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

   BALL
2. W

   PITT
3. W

   AKR
4. W

   FLA
5. W

   LSU
6. W

   ALA
7. W

   UTM
8. W

   UK
9. L

   UGA
10. W

    MIZ
11. L

    SC
12. W

    VAN
13. W

    CLEM

What moved it, 2022

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.66

Game by game

• BALLW 59-10 vs BALL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• PITTW 34-27 at PITT74% → 79%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +16
• AKRW 63-6 vs AKR100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +2
• FLAW 38-33 vs FLA81% → 4%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• LSUW 40-13 at LSU59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• ALAW 52-49 vs ALA25% → 96%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position +1
• UTMW 65-24 vs UTM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UKW 44-6 vs UK77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• UGAL 13-27 at UGA23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• MIZW 66-24 vs MIZ91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• SCL 38-63 at SC93% → 0%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −93: Scoreboard −61, Clock −1
• VANW 56-0 at VAN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• CLEMW 31-14 vs CLEM39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3

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.