Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1978th
  Defense−0.0393rd
• 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.
  Offense47.4%86th
  Defense37.6%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.115th
  Defense+1.2555th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1571st
  Defense−0.0387th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2471st
  Defense0.0088th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.0%88th
  Defense41.1%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%70th
  Defense30.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4093rd
  Defense2.6188th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.5%98th
  Defense22.6%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%84th
  Defense21.6%97th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UTC
2. W
   NCSU
3. W
   KENT
4. W
   OU
5. L
   ARK
6. W
   FLA
7. W
   ALA
8. W
   UK
9. W
   MSST
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    UTEP
12. W
    VAN
13. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2024

1. Nico IamaleavaQB313 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 68th of 232 QBs
   1.32WAR0.70 to 1.89
2. Dylan SampsonRB198 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 23rd of 373 RBs
   0.51WAR0.36 to 0.65
3. DeSean BishopRB49 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 225th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
4. Dont'e Thornton Jr.WR22 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
5. Jackson RossP42 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 34th of 106 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Bru McCoyWR31 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 151st of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
7. Miles KitselmanTE20 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 47th of 221 TEs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Max GilbertPK14 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 83rd of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85985917th of 131Roster talent: 859, 17th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25425415th of 131Recruiting: 254, 15th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%90th of 130Returning production: 33%, 90th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.0+22.09th of 131SP+ rating: +22.0, 9th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.01 of the 0.06 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 OUQ4 3:35 4th & 1 at OU 14, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at ARKQ3 1:25 4th & 5 at ARK 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs FLAQ3 11:32 4th & 4 at TENN 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs ALAQ4 1:30 4th & 2 at ALA 23, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs ALAQ1 1:51 4th & 3 at ALA 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at VANQ4 8:24 4th & 4 at VAN 4, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at VANQ2 8:33 4th & 5 at VAN 32, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at OUQ2 7:23 4th & 2 at TENN 14, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

55th of 134 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

   UTC
2. W

   NCSU
3. W

   KENT
4. W

   OU
5. L

   ARK
6. W

   FLA
7. W

   ALA
8. W

   UK
9. W

   MSST
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    UTEP
12. W

    VAN
13. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.12
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.80

Game by game

• UTCW 69-3 vs UTC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NCSUW 51-10 at NCSU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• KENTW 71-0 vs KENT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• OUW 25-15 at OU67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• ARKL 14-19 at ARK84% → 13%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• FLAW 23-17 vs FLA81% → 87%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts −16
• ALAW 24-17 vs ALA38% → 97%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• UKW 28-18 vs UK89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• MSSTW 33-14 vs MSST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts −1
• UGAL 17-31 at UGA25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• UTEPW 56-0 vs UTEP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VANW 36-23 at VAN79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• OSUL 17-42 at OSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32

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.