Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2486th
  Defense+0.0764th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%59th
  Defense41.0%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3688th
  Defense+1.1388th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2087th
  Defense+0.0559th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3380th
  Defense+0.1855th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%48th
  Defense47.6%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%86th
  Defense26.1%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2676th
  Defense3.2032nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%78th
  Defense14.9%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%78th
  Defense12.2%3rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MASS
2. W
   ALCN
3. W
   KSU
4. L
   USM
5. W
   HOU
6. W
   ECU
7. W
   USF
8. W
   MEM
9. W
   TLSA
10. L
    UCF
11. W
    SMU
12. W
    CIN
13. W
    UCF
14. W
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2022

1. Michael PrattQB392 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 44th of 234 QBs
   1.50WAR0.71 to 2.38
2. Tyjae SpearsRB213 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 1st of 384 RBs
   1.05WAR0.87 to 1.26
3. Duece WattsWR48 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 84th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.26
4. Jha'Quan JacksonWR31 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 151st of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Shae WyattWR35 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 191st of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Tyrick JamesTE28 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 28th of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Casey GloverP42 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 23rd of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
8. Iverson CelestineRB50 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 271st of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52252274th of 129Roster talent: 522, 74th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715774th of 129Recruiting: 157, 74th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%5th of 128Returning production: 86%, 5th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.4+12.428th of 129SP+ rating: +12.4, 28th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 CINQ4 1:36 4th & 6 at CIN 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs UCFQ2 0:18 4th & 12 at UCF 32, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 7:40 4th & 1 at MEM 8, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at TLSAQ4 9:20 4th & 4 at TLSA 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at USFQ2 0:03 4th & 11 at USF 11, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. at TLSAQ2 13:06 4th & 1 at TULN 19, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs MEMQ2 11:05 4th & 2 at TULN 40, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs MEMQ4 2:33 4th & 10 at MEM 31, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

5th of 131 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

   MASS
2. W

   ALCN
3. W

   KSU
4. L

   USM
5. W

   HOU
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   USF
8. W

   MEM
9. W

   TLSA
10. L

    UCF
11. W

    SMU
12. W

    CIN
13. W

    UCF
14. W

    USC

What moved it, 2022

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+3.05
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• MASSW 42-10 vs MASS96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ALCNW 52-0 vs ALCN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• KSUW 17-10 at KSU21% → 95%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +58, Clock +4
• USML 24-27 vs USM80% → 27%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +3
• HOUW 27-24 at HOU37% → 88%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• ECUW 24-9 vs ECU61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• USFW 45-31 at USF83% → 98%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• MEMW 38-28 vs MEM70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• TLSAW 27-13 at TLSA72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• UCFL 31-38 vs UCF55% → 9%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• SMUW 59-24 vs SMU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −1
• CINW 27-24 at CIN58% → 95%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• UCFW 45-28 vs UCF61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• USCW 46-45 at USC55% → 75%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +3

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.