Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.055th
  Defense+0.272nd
• 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.
  Offense36.4%8th
  Defense44.9%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3789th
  Defense+1.3715th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.065th
  Defense+0.224th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0714th
  Defense+0.425th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.1%9th
  Defense48.3%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.1%14th
  Defense37.1%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9323rd
  Defense3.0849th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%33rd
  Defense18.3%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.9%1st
  Defense14.8%18th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   AAMU
3. L
   WAKE
4. L
   UNLV
5. L
   UK
6. L
   MIZ
7. L
   FLA
8. L
   UGA
9. L
   MISS
10. L
    AUB
11. L
    SC
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2023

1. AJ SwannQB152 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 167th of 250 QBs
   0.28WAR−0.01 to 0.63
2. Ken SealsQB132 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 175th of 250 QBs
   0.26WAR−0.01 to 0.54
3. Matthew HayballP41 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 9th of 103 punters
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.27
4. Sedrick AlexanderRB69 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 201st of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Will SheppardWR37 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 145th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
6. Patrick SmithRB56 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 225th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Quincy Skinner Jr.WR16 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 302nd of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. Justin BallTE16 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 152nd of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64064058th of 130Roster talent: 640, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419444th of 130Recruiting: 194, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%66th of 128Returning production: 52%, 66th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.7−12.7108th of 130SP+ rating: −12.7, 108th 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, 2023

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 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. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at UNLVQ2 11:12 4th & 9 at VAN 19, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
2. at SCQ2 3:11 4th & 2 at VAN 46, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs AUBQ1 4:20 4th & 1 at VAN 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs AUBQ4 5:48 4th & 14 at AUB 14, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs MIZQ4 5:42 4th & 4 at VAN 32, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at SCQ3 10:48 4th & 5 at SC 18, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at MISSQ4 0:47 4th & 5 at MISS 25, down 26Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at TENNQ1 0:21 4th & 3 at TENN 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

119th of 133 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

   AAMU
3. L

   WAKE
4. L

   UNLV
5. L

   UK
6. L

   MIZ
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   UGA
9. L

   MISS
10. L

    AUB
11. L

    SC
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2023

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−1.74
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• HAWW 35-28 vs HAW88% → 62%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −26: Clock −2, Timeouts +2
• AAMUW 47-13 vs AAMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WAKEL 20-36 at WAKE24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UNLVL 37-40 at UNLV68% → 22%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −2
• UKL 28-45 vs UK18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• MIZL 21-38 vs MIZ16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• FLAL 14-38 at FLA10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• UGAL 20-37 vs UGA2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −8
• MISSL 7-33 at MISS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• AUBL 15-31 vs AUB17% → 2%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• SCL 6-47 at SC16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +1
• TENNL 24-48 at TENN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7, Timeouts −1

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.