Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.1425th
• 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.
  Offense35.3%3rd
  Defense44.7%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3498th
  Defense+1.2236th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0415th
  Defense+0.0361st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0935th
  Defense+0.3110th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%5th
  Defense48.4%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.9%15th
  Defense37.4%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.438th
  Defense2.5780th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.1%5th
  Defense23.1%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense2.0%54th

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, 2015

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
   DUKE
2. L
   GT
3. W
   ME
4. W
   UCF
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   NAVY
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   CONN
10. W
    ARMY
11. L
    SMU
12. L
    TLSA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2015

1. Tanner LeeQB218 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 101st of 205 QBs
   0.86WAR0.53 to 1.20
2. Jordy JosephQB57 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 156th of 205 QBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.41
3. Dontrell HilliardRB109 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 135th of 333 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.27
4. Teddy VealWR59 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 153rd of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.24
5. Devon BreauxWR38 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 172nd of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Sherman BadieRB79 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 210th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Andrew DiRoccoPK7 plays · +0.372 pts/play · 108th of 115 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Lazedrick ThompsonRB18 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 245th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40840883rd of 128Roster talent: 408, 83rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12412491st of 128Recruiting: 124, 91st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%62nd of 127Returning production: 62%, 62nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.0−14.0109th of 128SP+ rating: −14.0, 109th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.08 of the 0.12 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 MEMQ3 10:19 4th & 1 at TULN 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. at ARMYQ4 10:43 4th & 3 at ARMY 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs UCFQ3 10:09 4th & 7 at UCF 35, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs DUKEQ3 2:28 4th & 1 at TULN 18, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at TEMQ2 9:24 4th & 17 at TULN 22, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
6. vs CONNQ3 11:22 4th & 3 at TULN 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs TLSAQ2 4:19 4th & 2 at TLSA 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs DUKEQ4 14:23 4th & 6 at TULN 27, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

82nd 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

   DUKE
2. L

   GT
3. W

   ME
4. W

   UCF
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   NAVY
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   CONN
10. W

    ARMY
11. L

    SMU
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2015

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−0.99
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• DUKEL 7-37 vs DUKE20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• GTL 10-65 at GT5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• MEW 38-7 vs ME82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• UCFW 45-31 vs UCF43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• TEML 10-49 at TEM17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• HOUL 7-42 vs HOU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• NAVYL 14-31 at NAVY9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• MEML 13-41 at MEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• CONNL 3-7 vs CONN39% → 12%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• ARMYW 34-31 at ARMY50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• SMUL 21-49 at SMU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +1
• TLSAL 34-45 vs TLSA39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2

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.