Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.026th
  Defense+0.0379th
• 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.
  Offense37.2%5th
  Defense40.0%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1735th
  Defense+1.2528th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0746th
  Defense−0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.201st
  Defense+0.0972nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.2%14th
  Defense42.5%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.6%1st
  Defense35.3%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8233rd
  Defense2.5185th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%52nd
  Defense24.6%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%63rd
  Defense17.7%70th

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, 2016

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
   WAKE
2. W
   SOU
3. L
   NAVY
4. W
   UL
5. W
   MASS
6. L
   MEM
7. L
   TLSA
8. L
   SMU
9. L
   UCF
10. L
    HOU
11. L
    TEM
12. W
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2016

1. Glen CuielletteQB278 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 134th of 218 QBs
   0.44WAR−0.07 to 0.94
2. Dontrell HilliardRB122 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 66th of 347 RBs
   0.44WAR0.31 to 0.58
3. Josh RoundsRB88 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 111th of 347 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.40
4. Lazedrick ThompsonRB68 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 163rd of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.28
5. Zachary BlockP60 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 33rd of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.02 to 0.27
6. Terren EncaladeWR62 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. Andrew DiRoccoPK13 plays · +0.356 pts/play · 68th of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Sherman BadieRB35 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 258th of 347 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  388388103rd of 128Roster talent: 388, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12512587th of 128Recruiting: 125, 87th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%96th of 128Returning production: 52%, 96th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.6−14.6115th of 128SP+ rating: −14.6, 115th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.23 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 MASSQ4 15:00 4th & 14 at MASS 28, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−8.4 pts
2. vs MEMQ3 6:03 4th & 1 at TULN 29, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs ULQ3 8:23 4th & 3 at UL 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs ULQ3 11:30 4th & 2 at TULN 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs ULQ2 2:21 4th & 2 at UL 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at WAKEQ3 6:23 4th & 4 at WAKE 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs ULQ2 10:16 4th & 3 at UL 6, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UCFQ2 7:39 4th & 2 at UCF 46, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

73rd 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

   WAKE
2. W

   SOU
3. L

   NAVY
4. W

   UL
5. W

   MASS
6. L

   MEM
7. L

   TLSA
8. L

   SMU
9. L

   UCF
10. L

    HOU
11. L

    TEM
12. W

    CONN

What moved it, 2016

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−0.69
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• WAKEL 3-7 at WAKE12% → 6%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• SOUW 66-21 vs SOU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• NAVYL 14-21 vs NAVY28% → 9%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• ULW 41-39 vs UL58% → 74%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +16: Timeouts −19, Scoreboard +19
• MASSW 31-24 at MASS59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• MEML 14-24 vs MEM24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• TLSAL 27-50 at TLSA23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• SMUL 31-35 vs SMU46% → 21%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −38, Clock −4
• UCFL 6-37 at UCF11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• HOUL 18-30 at HOU6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• TEML 0-31 vs TEM14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• CONNW 38-13 at CONN39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Possession & field position +1

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.