clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

TaxSlayer Bowl Study Hall: Tennessee 45, Iowa 28

Sam Greenwood/Getty Images

Tennessee 45, Iowa 28

Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.

Basics Iowa Tennessee Nat'l Avg
Total Plays 66 73
Close Rate (non-garbage time) 37.4%
Avg Starting FP 26.6 39.2 30.0
Possessions 14 14
Scoring Opportunities*
5 9
Points Per Opportunity 5.60 5.00 4.65
Leverage Rate** 55.0% 90.6% 68.3%
Close S&P*** 0.307 0.852 0.506
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40).
** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs)
*** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP)
EqPts (what's this?) Iowa Tennessee
Total 27.4 35.4
Rushing 15.9 22.3
Passing 11.6 13.1
Success Rate (what's this?) Iowa Tennessee Nat'l Avg
All (close) 15.0% 81.3% 41.8%
Rushing (close) 0.0% 80.0% 43.2%
Passing (close) 30.0% 83.3% 40.3%
Standard Downs 0.0% 79.3% 47.0%
Passing Downs 33.3% 100.0% 30.6%
IsoPPP (what's this?) Iowa Tennessee Nat'l Avg
All (close) 0.93 1.01 0.86
Rushing (close) N/A 0.93 0.74
Passing (close) 0.57 1.14 0.99
Standard Downs N/A 0.94 0.77
Passing Downs 0.61 1.56 1.13
Line Stats Iowa Tennessee Nat'l Avg
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) 1.46 5.20 2.92
Std. Downs Sack Rt. 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%
Turnovers Iowa Tennessee
Turnovers 2 1
Turnover Points (what's this?) 9.3 6.4
Turnover Margin Tennessee +1
Exp. TO Margin Tennessee +1.39
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) Iowa +0.39
TO Points Margin Tennessee +3.0 points
Situational Iowa Tennessee
Q1 S&P 0.307 0.903
Q2 S&P 0.528 0.700
Q3 S&P 0.469 0.492
Q4 S&P 0.865 0.341
1st Down S&P 0.604 0.650
2nd Down S&P 0.472 0.633
3rd Down S&P 0.459 0.518
Projected Scoring Margin: Tennessee by 10.9
Actual Scoring Margin: Tennessee by 17

Yes, I'm tapping the brakes on Tennessee's 2015 expectations.

With Dobbs, they won three of four to finish the regular season, but even in that stretch they only looked great once, in a 50-14 win over Kentucky. That they came back to win at South Carolina was an excellent sign for a young team, and that they survived a sketchy performance to take down Vanderbilt suggested maturity.

Still, this was a borderline top-40 team that, with quite a bit of returning experience, should expect to approach a top-25 level next year.

But following Friday's dominance, a top-30 2015 might end up a disappointment. The bowl bump, one of the most unfair rewards for a strong bowl performance, could set the bar higher than the Vols can reach. Just ask 2012 West Virginia, which was rewarded for its 2012 Orange Bowl decimation of Clemson with a No. 11 preseason ranking and went 7-6. Or 2014 Oklahoma, which finished 2013 by beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, began this season ranked fourth in the country, then fell apart.

Brakes or no, though, this was a dominant performance. Iowa put on a garbage-time performance for the ages, finishing the game on a 21-3 run after everybody had stopped paying attention. But in non-garbage time, the Hawkeyes run success rate was 0%. ZERO. Standard downs success rate: 0%. They were basically starting every drive at second-and-9. Meanwhile, the Vols were starting every drive at second-and-2. If Tennessee had wanted to keep the foot on the accelerator, the Vols could have won by 50.