UT Martin
Expected points
YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →
Drives vs. expectation, 2016
Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.
Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.
Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.
Average expected points where drives started.
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 UT Martin 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.
Game by game
Bars above the line: better than expected for UT Martin.
Fourth downs
YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →
Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016
Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.
Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.
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 UT Martin'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.
Costliest calls against the numbers
- at HAWQ4 3:12 4th & 29 at UTM 42, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
- at CINQ3 13:06 4th & 10 at CIN 27, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
- at CINQ2 4:51 4th & 3 at CIN 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
- at GASTQ1 6:24 4th & 1 at UTM 11, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
- at GASTQ4 1:11 4th & 14 at GAST 38, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
Every call this season (25)
- Q1 4:084th & 9 at UTM 48, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 4:514th & 3 at CIN 20, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
- Q2 2:584th & 14 at CIN 14, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 13:064th & 10 at CIN 27, up 1 · Went for itClose call
- Q3 8:554th & 5 at UTM 33, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 2:374th & 12 at CIN 45, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 9:334th & 10 at HAW 10, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q1 3:544th & 10 at UTM 18, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 10:264th & 1 at HAW 21, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 2:144th & 18 at HAW 32, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 10:144th & 2 at HAW 26, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
- Q3 7:384th & 22 at UTM 5, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 3:204th & 13 at UTM 12, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 3:124th & 4 at HAW 45, down 5 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 3:124th & 29 at UTM 42, down 5 · Went for it−1.4 pts
- Q1 6:244th & 1 at UTM 11, tied · PuntedClose call
- Q1 0:564th & 11 at UTM 21, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 14:534th & 10 at UTM 48, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 8:524th & 13 at UTM 26, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 6:334th & 6 at GAST 38, down 10 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 0:594th & 16 at GAST 27, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 13:134th & 9 at UTM 35, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 9:344th & 21 at UTM 23, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 6:484th & 7 at GAST 22, down 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 1:114th & 14 at GAST 38, down 25 · Went for itClose call
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.
Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.
Costliest tries against the numbers
Win probability
YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →
Record vs. expectation, 2016
Expected wins adds up UT Martin's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.
What moved it, 2016
Every game starts at UT Martin'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−0.54
- Possession & field position+0.01
- Timeouts−0.02
- Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14
Game by game
- CINL 7-28 at CIN5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
- HAWL 36-41 at HAW26% → 6%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position +1
- GASTL 6-31 at GAST17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
Points of win probability, from UT Martin's side.
Closest call
UTM 24-13 KENN (2024) - UT Martin dropped to a 41.5% win probability before pulling it out.
Season arc, 2016
Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is UT Martin's own win-probability curve.
Biggest swings of 2016
The largest single-play change in UT Martin's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.
Stolen wins
UT Martin's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.
Let it slip
UT Martin's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.
Stock & rivalries
Stock
UT Martin's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.
Series & rivalries
UT Martin's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.