Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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.
  Offense0.006th
  Defense+0.1166th
• 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.
  Offense35.7%6th
  Defense44.7%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2676th
  Defense+1.1571st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0324th
  Defense+0.0957th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.014th
  Defense+0.1569th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.0%7th
  Defense48.9%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%8th
  Defense35.8%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5517th
  Defense2.5781st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.3%11th
  Defense26.4%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%14th
  Defense2.5%76th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Tulane 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. L
   TLSA
2. L
   GT
3. W
   SELA
4. L
   DUKE
5. L
   RUTG
6. W
   CONN
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   CIN
9. W
   HOU
10. L
    MEM
11. L
    ECU
12. L
    TEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2014

1. Tanner LeeQB270 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 110th of 199 QBs
   0.86WAR0.49 to 1.26
2. Nick MontanaQB81 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 154th of 199 QBs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
3. Lazedrick ThompsonRB86 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 123rd of 350 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
4. Sherman BadieRB127 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 128th of 350 RBs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.29
5. Dontrell HilliardRB103 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 133rd of 350 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.26
6. Justyn ShacklefordWR53 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. Teddy VealWR50 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 186th of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20
8. Andrew DiRoccoPK10 plays · +0.372 pts/play · 91st of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 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 Tulane'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Tulane's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.15 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 TLSAQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at TLSA 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. vs CINQ2 1:51 4th & 1 at TULN 10, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs CINQ2 10:35 4th & 3 at CIN 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs CONNQ4 3:54 4th & 1 at TULN 39, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs CINQ2 0:05 4th & 3 at TULN 48, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at TLSAQ3 8:15 4th & 9 at TLSA 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs TEMQ2 6:25 4th & 3 at TULN 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MEMQ2 0:35 4th & 6 at MEM 6, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

85th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Tulane's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TLSA
2. L

   GT
3. W

   SELA
4. L

   DUKE
5. L

   RUTG
6. W

   CONN
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   CIN
9. W

   HOU
10. L

    MEM
11. L

    ECU
12. L

    TEM

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Tulane'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−1.33
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• TLSAL 31-38 at TLSA40% → 18%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +20
• GTL 21-38 vs GT21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• SELAW 35-20 vs SELA68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• DUKEL 13-47 at DUKE11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• RUTGL 6-31 at RUTG21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −23
• CONNW 12-3 vs CONN59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 13-20 at UCF11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• CINL 14-38 vs CIN43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• HOUW 31-24 at HOU13% → 86%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• MEML 7-38 vs MEM20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• ECUL 6-34 at ECU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• TEML 3-10 vs TEM39% → 5%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Tulane's side.

Closest call

TULN 46-45 USC (2022) - Tulane dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.