Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1356th
  Defense+0.0959th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%61st
  Defense38.9%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2545th
  Defense+1.3914th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2292nd
  Defense−0.0587th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0324th
  Defense+0.2533rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%67th
  Defense43.6%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%50th
  Defense30.0%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2992nd
  Defense2.5980th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%57th
  Defense21.8%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%38th
  Defense19.1%87th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. W
   USA
2. L
   NAVY
3. W
   USM
4. L
   HOU
5. L
   SMU
6. L
   UCF
7. W
   TEM
8. W
   ECU
9. W
   ARMY
10. L
    TLSA
11. W
    MEM
12. L
    NEV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2020

1. Michael PrattQB306 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 36th of 212 QBs
   0.80WAR0.30 to 1.36
2. Cam CarrollRB110 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 37th of 338 RBs
   0.44WAR0.36 to 0.54
3. Stephon HudersonRB111 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 38th of 338 RBs
   0.44WAR0.36 to 0.52
4. Tyjae SpearsRB39 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 206th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.19
5. Amare JonesWR84 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 52nd of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Duece WattsWR47 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 89th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Keon HowardQB69 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 156th of 212 QBs
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.24
8. Jha'Quan JacksonWR41 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 122nd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52652673rd of 127Roster talent: 526, 73rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015084th of 127Recruiting: 150, 84th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%90th of 127Returning production: 50%, 90th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.2+4.249th of 127SP+ rating: +4.2, 49th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.03 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 ECUQ4 6:57 4th & 1 at ECU 22, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
2. at TLSAQ4 12:18 4th & 6 at TLSA 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at HOUQ4 11:43 4th & 8 at HOU 21, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at ECUQ4 4:53 4th & 6 at ECU 43, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs SMUQ2 0:44 4th & 2 at SMU 17, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs ARMYQ2 10:21 4th & 2 at TULN 22, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at NEVQ4 2:27 4th & 18 at TULN 35, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at HOUQ4 0:40 4th & 12 at HOU 33, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

43rd of 127 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. W

   USA
2. L

   NAVY
3. W

   USM
4. L

   HOU
5. L

   SMU
6. L

   UCF
7. W

   TEM
8. W

   ECU
9. W

   ARMY
10. L

    TLSA
11. W

    MEM
12. L

    NEV

What moved it, 2020

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+0.95
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.07

Game by game

• USAW 27-24 at USA76% → 94%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• NAVYL 24-27 vs NAVY67% → 40%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −3
• USMW 66-24 at USM56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48
• HOUL 31-49 at HOU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +1
• SMUL 34-37 vs SMU30% → 26%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −34, Clock +19
• UCFL 34-51 at UCF7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• TEMW 38-3 vs TEM63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• ECUW 38-21 at ECU51% → 99%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• ARMYW 38-12 vs ARMY56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• TLSAL 24-30 at TLSA31% → 20%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts +18
• MEMW 35-21 vs MEM53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• NEVL 27-38 at NEV50% → 3%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −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.