Vanderbilt

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+0.016th
  Defense+0.2712th
• 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.
  Offense34.5%2nd
  Defense47.5%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3269th
  Defense+1.2650th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0419th
  Defense+0.2121st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0511th
  Defense+0.3514th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense37.9%2nd
  Defense52.4%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%18th
  Defense36.2%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.729th
  Defense3.4510th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%12th
  Defense16.4%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense13.5%12th

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 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
   ETSU
2. W
   CSU
3. L
   STAN
4. L
   UGA
5. W
   CONN
6. L
   FLA
7. L
   SC
8. L
   MSST
9. L
   MIZ
10. L
    UK
11. L
    MISS
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2021

1. Mike Wright Jr.QB104 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 139th of 219 QBs
   0.44WAR0.20 to 0.69
2. Ken SealsQB153 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 171st of 219 QBs
   0.24WAR−0.03 to 0.48
3. Rocko GriffinRB81 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 222nd of 387 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.25
4. Ray DavisRB34 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 283rd of 387 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Chris PierceWR32 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 227th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Will SheppardWR27 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 242nd of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Cam JohnsonWR16 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 349th of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Patrick SmithRB11 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 329th of 387 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61061057th of 130Roster talent: 610, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818850th of 130Recruiting: 188, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  106%106%3rd of 128Returning production: 106%, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.4−19.4122nd of 130SP+ rating: −19.4, 122nd 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 Vanderbilt's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.11 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 SCQ4 7:23 4th & 1 at VAN 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.5 pts
2. at CSUQ4 11:34 4th & 2 at VAN 24, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs MIZQ2 0:15 4th & 7 at MIZ 34, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. at CSUQ4 13:33 4th & 2 at VAN 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs MSSTQ3 11:32 4th & 2 at VAN 43, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs MIZQ2 2:50 4th & 10 at MIZ 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at FLAQ4 11:25 4th & 1 at VAN 46, down 42Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at TENNQ4 4:08 4th & 6 at VAN 25, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

97th of 130 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

   ETSU
2. W

   CSU
3. L

   STAN
4. L

   UGA
5. W

   CONN
6. L

   FLA
7. L

   SC
8. L

   MSST
9. L

   MIZ
10. L

    UK
11. L

    MISS
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2021

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−1.45
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• ETSUL 3-23 vs ETSU91% → 1%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −66, Clock −3
• CSUW 24-21 at CSU38% → 78%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +3
• STANL 23-41 vs STAN26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• UGAL 0-62 vs UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• CONNW 30-28 vs CONN85% → 95%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +1
• FLAL 0-42 at FLA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• SCL 20-21 at SC14% → 6%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• MSSTL 6-45 vs MSST10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• MIZL 28-37 vs MIZ16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• UKL 17-34 vs UK11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• MISSL 17-31 at MISS2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −6
• TENNL 21-45 at TENN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6

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.