Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2280th
  Defense+0.0574th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%82nd
  Defense38.2%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2227th
  Defense+1.3419th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense−0.0285th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3069th
  Defense+0.1864th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%88th
  Defense42.5%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%56th
  Defense30.2%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3587th
  Defense2.7190th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.6%96th
  Defense20.0%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%92nd
  Defense18.4%80th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UVA
2. W
   APSU
3. L
   FLA
4. W
   UTSA
5. W
   SC
6. W
   TA&M
7. L
   ALA
8. W
   UK
9. W
   CONN
10. L
    MIZ
11. L
    UGA
12. W
    VAN
13. W
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2023

1. Joe Milton IIIQB240 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 77th of 250 QBs
   1.18WAR0.59 to 1.78
2. Jaylen WrightRB103 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 114th of 383 RBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.32
3. Dylan SampsonRB70 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 176th of 383 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
4. Jabari SmallRB60 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 192nd of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. Nico IamaleavaQB30 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 214th of 250 QBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Charles CampbellPK13 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 73rd of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. McCallan CastlesTE15 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 100th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Ramel KeytonWR36 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 271st of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82182116th of 130Roster talent: 821, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25325315th of 130Recruiting: 253, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%84th of 128Returning production: 42%, 84th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.2+16.214th of 130SP+ rating: +16.2, 14th 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, 2023

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 IOWAQ3 9:28 4th & 1 at TENN 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at UKQ3 13:54 4th & 1 at TENN 34, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs TA&MQ2 7:47 4th & 3 at TA&M 33, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at FLAQ4 2:31 4th & 10 at FLA 25, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. at ALAQ4 2:00 4th & 10 at ALA 14, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ALAQ3 12:31 4th & 2 at TENN 12, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 13:06 4th & 2 at TENN 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs SCQ4 12:42 4th & 3 at SC 15, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

69th of 133 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

   UVA
2. W

   APSU
3. L

   FLA
4. W

   UTSA
5. W

   SC
6. W

   TA&M
7. L

   ALA
8. W

   UK
9. W

   CONN
10. L

    MIZ
11. L

    UGA
12. W

    VAN
13. W

    IOWA

What moved it, 2023

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−0.05
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• UVAW 49-13 vs UVA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• APSUW 30-13 vs APSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +2
• FLAL 16-29 at FLA64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position +2
• UTSAW 45-14 vs UTSA93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• SCW 41-20 vs SC80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −2
• TA&MW 20-13 vs TA&M58% → 90%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +3
• ALAL 20-34 at ALA27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• UKW 33-27 at UK64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• CONNW 59-3 vs CONN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MIZL 7-36 at MIZ55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +2
• UGAL 10-38 vs UGA26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• VANW 48-24 vs VAN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7, Timeouts +1
• IOWAW 35-0 vs IOWA70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31

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.