Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0819th
  Defense+0.1735th
• 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.
  Offense38.6%16th
  Defense42.5%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4496th
  Defense+1.3325th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1767th
  Defense+0.0763rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.015th
  Defense+0.2729th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%15th
  Defense45.8%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%40th
  Defense35.5%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0443rd
  Defense2.7088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%24th
  Defense22.2%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.7%5th
  Defense17.0%56th

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, 2021

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
   OU
2. W
   MORG
3. L
   MISS
4. L
   UAB
5. L
   ECU
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   SMU
8. L
   CIN
9. L
   UCF
10. L
    TLSA
11. W
    USF
12. L
    MEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2021

1. Michael PrattQB311 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 88th of 219 QBs
   1.10WAR0.55 to 1.69
2. Tyjae SpearsRB118 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 39th of 387 RBs
   0.63WAR0.50 to 0.75
3. Cam CarrollRB92 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 168th of 387 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.34
4. Ryan WrightP39 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 8th of 101 punters
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
5. Shae WyattWR35 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Duece WattsWR26 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 273rd of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Jaetavian TolesWR33 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 322nd of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Phat WattsWR17 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 386th of 474 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46346387th of 130Roster talent: 463, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016075th of 130Recruiting: 160, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%35th of 128Returning production: 88%, 35th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.9−3.989th of 130SP+ rating: −3.9, 89th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 UCFQ4 4:41 4th & 4 at TULN 31, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs UABQ4 1:57 4th & 10 at UAB 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. at SMUQ4 13:01 4th & 8 at TULN 33, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at ECUQ2 0:07 4th & 1 at ECU 41, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs UABQ3 13:44 4th & 21 at UAB 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs CINQ3 9:07 4th & 2 at TULN 13, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at SMUQ3 8:37 4th & 7 at SMU 9, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs HOUQ4 3:02 4th & 21 at HOU 47, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

122nd 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.

1. L

   OU
2. W

   MORG
3. L

   MISS
4. L

   UAB
5. L

   ECU
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   SMU
8. L

   CIN
9. L

   UCF
10. L

    TLSA
11. W

    USF
12. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2021

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−2.43
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.17
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.60

Game by game

• OUL 35-40 at OU3% → 14%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +11: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +3
• MORGW 69-20 vs MORG100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MISSL 21-61 at MISS16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• UABL 21-28 vs UAB61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ECUL 29-52 at ECU57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• HOUL 22-40 vs HOU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• SMUL 26-55 at SMU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21
• CINL 12-31 vs CIN4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12
• UCFL 10-14 at UCF20% → 13%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• TLSAL 13-20 vs TLSA47% → 18%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −19
• USFW 45-14 vs USF64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36
• MEML 28-33 at MEM38% → 24%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position +4

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.