Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0624th
  Defense+0.0761st
• 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.
  Offense37.5%7th
  Defense39.1%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3998th
  Defense+1.359th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0332nd
  Defense+0.0464th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1132nd
  Defense+0.1161st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.4%6th
  Defense42.7%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.
  Offense30.5%23rd
  Defense32.7%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7934th
  Defense2.8950th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%50th
  Defense17.8%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense19.0%84th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   NICH
3. L
   UAB
4. L
   OSU
5. W
   MEM
6. L
   CIN
7. L
   SMU
8. W
   TLSA
9. W
   USF
10. W
    ECU
11. L
    HOU
12. W
    NAVY
13. W
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2018

1. Justin McMillanQB168 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 123rd of 225 QBs
   0.62WAR0.31 to 0.95
2. Darius BradwellRB156 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 37th of 351 RBs
   0.60WAR0.45 to 0.76
3. Jonathan BanksQB174 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 139th of 225 QBs
   0.50WAR0.25 to 0.81
4. Corey DauphineRB95 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 130th of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.26 to 0.40
5. Darnell MooneyWR69 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 27th of 434 WRs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.34
6. Terren EncaladeWR57 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 59th of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
7. Stephon HudersonRB49 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 233rd of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.20
8. Merek GloverPK10 plays · +0.404 pts/play · 84th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.06 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44544583rd of 130Roster talent: 445, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613688th of 130Recruiting: 136, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%18th of 129Returning production: 85%, 18th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.5−3.590th of 130SP+ rating: −3.5, 90th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 0.15 of the 0.20 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 WAKEQ4 1:01 4th & 12 at WAKE 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.0 pts
2. vs WAKEQ4 6:05 4th & 11 at WAKE 37, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
3. at TLSAQ4 12:06 4th & 3 at TLSA 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs ECUQ3 8:11 4th & 3 at ECU 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs WAKEQ4 14:28 4th & 7 at WAKE 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs ECUQ4 1:43 4th & 9 at ECU 34, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. vs SMUQ4 4:40 4th & 3 at TULN 18, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at OSUQ4 14:19 4th & 17 at OSU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

57th of 130 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   WAKE
2. W

   NICH
3. L

   UAB
4. L

   OSU
5. W

   MEM
6. L

   CIN
7. L

   SMU
8. W

   TLSA
9. W

   USF
10. W

    ECU
11. L

    HOU
12. W

    NAVY
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2018

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+0.23
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• WAKEL 17-23 vs WAKE35% → 10%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −16
• NICHW 42-17 vs NICH85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• UABL 24-31 at UAB57% → 9%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• OSUL 6-49 at OSU1% → 49%Before kickoff −49 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +5, Clock +1
• MEMW 40-24 vs MEM19% → 99%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts +2
• CINL 21-37 at CIN30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• SMUL 23-27 vs SMU71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• TLSAW 24-17 at TLSA44% → 94%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• ECUW 24-18 vs ECU80% → 88%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• HOUL 17-48 at HOU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35
• NAVYW 29-28 vs NAVY70% → 85%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• ULW 41-24 at UL60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +46, 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.