Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0728th
  Defense+0.1139th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%24th
  Defense42.6%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3072nd
  Defense+1.2447th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1149th
  Defense+0.0355th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1942nd
  Defense+0.2337th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%25th
  Defense49.6%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%23rd
  Defense29.6%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9636th
  Defense2.7861st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%58th
  Defense18.1%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%27th
  Defense15.2%40th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   APSU
2. W
   DEL
3. W
   NCSU
4. L
   AUB
5. L
   UGA
6. L
   MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2026

1. Jared CurtisQB142 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 53rd of 192 QBs
   0.32WAR0.10 to 0.54
2. Junior SherrillWR38 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 19th of 364 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.19
3. Makhilyn YoungRB40 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Sedrick AlexanderRB47 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Blaze BerlowitzQB37 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 155th of 192 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
6. Jayvontay ConnerTE15 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 34th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Brock TaylorPK6 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 20th of 82 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Ja'Cory ThomasWR9 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72772742nd of 138Roster talent: 727, 42nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020047th of 138Recruiting: 200, 47th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%78th of 136Returning production: 35%, 78th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.2+1.265th of 138SP+ rating so far: +1.2, 65th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.01 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 NCSUQ3 10:52 4th & 2 at VAN 25, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
2. vs NCSUQ4 8:02 4th & 5 at VAN 30, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
3. at UGAQ2 7:43 4th & 8 at UGA 40, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs DELQ1 8:16 4th & 10 at VAN 41, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs MISSQ2 2:21 4th & 5 at MISS 19, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at AUBQ2 14:55 4th & 5 at VAN 46, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at UGAQ2 11:02 4th & 5 at VAN 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs DELQ1 12:04 4th & 3 at VAN 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

72nd of 138 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

   APSU
2. W

   DEL
3. W

   NCSU
4. L

   AUB
5. L

   UGA
6. L

   MISS

What moved it, 2026

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−0.17
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• APSUW 28-9 vs APSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• DELW 35-26 vs DEL89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• NCSUW 35-31 vs NCSU57% → 91%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• AUBL 15-21 at AUB27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• UGAL 14-38 at UGA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• MISSL 17-52 vs MISS26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Clock −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.