Tennessee

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.3097th
  Defense+0.1047th
• 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.
  Offense50.6%97th
  Defense44.5%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2766th
  Defense+1.1687th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3585th
  Defense+0.1457th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.4%99th
  Defense51.9%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%83rd
  Defense27.9%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1071st
  Defense2.8947th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%93rd
  Defense20.4%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%87th
  Defense18.4%86th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SYR
2. W
   ETSU
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   UAB
5. W
   MSST
6. W
   ARK
7. L
   ALA
8. W
   UK
9. L
   OU
10. W
    NMSU
11. W
    FLA
12. L
    VAN
13. L
    ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tennessee.

Players, 2025

1. Joey AguilarQB339 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 45th of 231 QBs
   1.46WAR0.75 to 2.12
2. DeSean BishopRB152 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 29th of 365 RBs
   0.35WAR0.28 to 0.43
3. Star ThomasRB63 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 219th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
4. Chris Brazzell IIWR54 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 170th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.01 to 0.23
5. Mike MatthewsWR51 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 178th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.20
6. Braylon StaleyWR73 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 235th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.05 to 0.21
7. Peyton LewisRB41 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 262nd of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Jackson RossP27 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 32nd of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86786716th of 134Roster talent: 867, 16th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26426414th of 134Recruiting: 264, 14th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%89th of 132Returning production: 22%, 89th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.0+15.019th of 134SP+ rating: +15.0, 19th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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. vs VANQ4 12:31 4th & 3 at VAN 7, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
2. vs UGAQ2 7:57 4th & 2 at TENN 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs SYRQ2 5:33 4th & 2 at TENN 10, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs VANQ4 6:45 4th & 14 at TENN 42, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UGAQ4 6:40 4th & 6 at UGA 30, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ALAQ4 14:44 4th & 4 at TENN 31, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at ALAQ4 3:09 4th & 11 at ALA 16, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MSSTQ1 5:00 4th & 2 at MSST 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

90th of 136 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

   SYR
2. W

   ETSU
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   UAB
5. W

   MSST
6. W

   ARK
7. L

   ALA
8. W

   UK
9. L

   OU
10. W

    NMSU
11. W

    FLA
12. L

    VAN
13. L

    ILL

What moved it, 2025

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−0.37
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.18
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• SYRW 45-26 vs SYR84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• ETSUW 72-17 vs ETSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UGAL 41-44 vs UGA38% → 11%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −16
• UABW 56-24 vs UAB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTW 41-34 at MSST68% → 75%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −2
• ARKW 34-31 vs ARK76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• ALAL 20-37 at ALA24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +2
• UKW 56-34 at UK71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• OUL 27-33 vs OU54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• NMSUW 42-9 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FLAW 31-11 at FLA54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• VANL 24-45 vs VAN54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• ILLL 28-30 at ILL57% → 5%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −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.