:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45174242/460978658.0.jpg)
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.