Vanderbilt

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+0.0218th
  Defense+0.371st
• 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.
  Offense38.7%20th
  Defense53.9%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1613th
  Defense+1.2164th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0710th
  Defense+0.2212th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1241st
  Defense+0.481st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%23rd
  Defense60.5%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.3%21st
  Defense35.7%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6017th
  Defense3.2317th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%54th
  Defense19.8%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%29th
  Defense12.0%6th

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 Vanderbilt 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
   TA&M
2. L
   LSU
3. L
   SC
4. L
   MISS
5. L
   MSST
6. L
   UK
7. L
   FLA
8. L
   MIZ
9. L
   TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2020

1. Keyon Henry-BrooksRB107 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 71st of 338 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.46
2. Ken SealsQB206 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 122nd of 212 QBs
   0.22WAR−0.10 to 0.54
3. Cam JohnsonWR40 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 129th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
4. Chris PierceWR27 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 285th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
5. Ben BresnahanTE19 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 48th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
6. Harrison SmithP34 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 61st of 77 punters
   0.01WAR−0.03 to 0.05

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 Vanderbilt'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.
  60860854th of 127Roster talent: 608, 54th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418454th of 127Recruiting: 184, 54th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%124th of 127Returning production: 24%, 124th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.8−16.8120th of 127SP+ rating: −16.8, 120th 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 Vanderbilt'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 0.05 of the 0.07 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 TA&MQ4 11:44 4th & 1 at VAN 27, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs TENNQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at TENN 36, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs SCQ3 14:53 4th & 5 at VAN 31, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs FLAQ4 10:01 4th & 23 at FLA 39, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs LSUQ3 7:10 4th & 5 at VAN 30, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TENNQ2 12:03 4th & 3 at TENN 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at MSSTQ2 9:24 4th & 14 at MSST 36, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs LSUQ1 6:09 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

98th of 127 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Vanderbilt's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TA&M
2. L

   LSU
3. L

   SC
4. L

   MISS
5. L

   MSST
6. L

   UK
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   MIZ
9. L

   TENN

What moved it, 2020

Every game starts at Vanderbilt'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−1.28
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.61

Game by game

• TA&ML 12-17 at TA&M2% → 4%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −7
• LSUL 7-41 vs LSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• SCL 7-41 vs SC15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• MISSL 21-54 vs MISS10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• MSSTL 17-24 at MSST9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• UKL 35-38 at UK10% → 6%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 17-38 vs FLA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• MIZL 0-41 at MIZ16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −18
• TENNL 17-42 vs TENN13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18

Points of win probability, from Vanderbilt's side.

Closest call

VAN 31-30 WKU (2016) - Vanderbilt dropped to a 3.5% win probability before pulling it out.