Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.4099th
  Defense+0.1718th
• 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.
  Offense51.9%99th
  Defense41.7%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3996th
  Defense+1.2925th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3399th
  Defense−0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5199th
  Defense+0.3313th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.8%89th
  Defense47.6%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense49.5%99th
  Defense30.2%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3794th
  Defense2.6683rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%82nd
  Defense21.6%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%81st
  Defense17.1%72nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   CHSO
2. W
   VT
3. W
   SC
4. W
   GAST
5. W
   USU
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   LSU
8. W
   MIZ
9. L
   TEX
10. W
    AUB
11. W
    UK
12. W
    TENN
13. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2025

1. Diego PaviaQB418 plays · +0.313 pts/play · 4th of 231 QBs
   2.45WAR1.76 to 3.14
2. Eli StowersTE58 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 1st of 213 TEs
   0.27WAR0.16 to 0.39
3. Tre RichardsonWR76 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 84th of 451 WRs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.32
4. Sedrick AlexanderRB99 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 137th of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Junior SherrillWR64 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 139th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.24
6. Brock TaylorPK11 plays · +0.419 pts/play · 52nd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Richie HoskinsWR22 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 338th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
8. Cole SpenceTE16 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 118th of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68568555th of 134Roster talent: 685, 55th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719747th of 134Recruiting: 197, 47th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%1st of 132Returning production: 86%, 1st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.3+20.311th of 134SP+ rating: +20.3, 11th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 of the 0.06 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. vs LSUQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at LSU 28, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at SCQ4 9:31 4th & 3 at SC 33, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at ALAQ4 1:18 4th & 21 at VAN 28, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at TEXQ4 1:53 4th & 19 at VAN 2, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at VTQ2 4:19 4th & 4 at VT 11, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at ALAQ3 12:49 4th & 4 at VAN 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at VTQ4 2:12 4th & 9 at VT 9, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at TEXQ2 1:54 4th & 5 at TEX 25, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

16th of 136 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

   CHSO
2. W

   VT
3. W

   SC
4. W

   GAST
5. W

   USU
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   LSU
8. W

   MIZ
9. L

   TEX
10. W

    AUB
11. W

    UK
12. W

    TENN
13. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2025

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+2.00
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• CHSOW 45-3 vs CHSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VTW 44-20 at VT51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• SCW 31-7 at SC45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• GASTW 70-21 vs GAST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USUW 55-35 vs USU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• ALAL 14-30 at ALA18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• LSUW 31-24 vs LSU52% → 97%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• MIZW 17-10 vs MIZ63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +2
• TEXL 31-34 at TEX40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• AUBW 45-38 vs AUB69% → 83%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −22
• UKW 45-17 vs UK72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• TENNW 45-24 at TENN46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• IOWAL 27-34 vs IOWA63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3

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.