Vanderbilt

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+0.0839th
  Defense+0.245th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%35th
  Defense45.2%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2553rd
  Defense+1.415th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0120th
  Defense+0.0178th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2558th
  Defense+0.511st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%43rd
  Defense50.5%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%21st
  Defense32.1%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0138th
  Defense3.2327th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%58th
  Defense16.7%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%22nd
  Defense14.6%27th

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 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. W
   HAW
2. W
   ELON
3. L
   WAKE
4. W
   NIU
5. L
   ALA
6. L
   MISS
7. L
   UGA
8. L
   MIZ
9. L
   SC
10. W
    UK
11. W
    FLA
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2022

1. Mike Wright Jr.QB128 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 130th of 234 QBs
   0.45WAR0.09 to 0.84
2. AJ SwannQB118 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 137th of 234 QBs
   0.39WAR0.11 to 0.70
3. Will SheppardWR58 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 87th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
4. Matthew HayballP29 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 24th of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
5. Patrick SmithRB47 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 250th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Ben BresnahanTE13 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 135th of 214 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Joseph BulovasPK9 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 93rd of 110 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. Jayden McGowanWR8 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 434th of 455 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63063057th of 129Roster talent: 630, 57th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19019047th of 129Recruiting: 190, 47th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%53rd of 128Returning production: 64%, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.7−4.785th of 129SP+ rating: −4.7, 85th 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 Vanderbilt'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 0.02 of the 0.05 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 UKQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at UK 42, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
2. at MIZQ3 15:00 4th & 7 at VAN 42, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs FLAQ4 12:30 4th & 3 at FLA 49, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at HAWQ2 0:14 4th & 1 at HAW 34, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs WAKEQ2 2:35 4th & 2 at VAN 18, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs WAKEQ3 2:28 4th & 10 at WAKE 24, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs TENNQ2 1:11 4th & 17 at TENN 39, down 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MISSQ4 7:03 4th & 5 at MISS 29, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

22nd of 131 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. W

   HAW
2. W

   ELON
3. L

   WAKE
4. W

   NIU
5. L

   ALA
6. L

   MISS
7. L

   UGA
8. L

   MIZ
9. L

   SC
10. W

    UK
11. W

    FLA
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2022

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+0.24
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.96

Game by game

• HAWW 63-10 at HAW80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• ELONW 42-31 vs ELON89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• WAKEL 25-45 vs WAKE19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• NIUW 38-28 at NIU44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ALAL 3-55 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MISSL 28-52 vs MISS17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• UGAL 0-55 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MIZL 14-17 at MIZ19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• SCL 27-38 vs SC34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• UKW 24-21 at UK13% → 86%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +4
• FLAW 31-24 vs FLA20% → 89%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position −2
• TENNL 0-56 vs TENN16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22

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.