Middle Tennessee
Middle Tennessee State University · 2023 · Conference USA
Middle Tennessee went 4-8 and was ranked 105th in the FanBoardHQ CFP Rankings (blended resume and efficiency). Their 79th-ranked defense carried them, with a 104th-ranked offense. They passed the ball on 58% of offensive plays with a 101st-ranked passing attack and ran the ball on the remaining 42% of plays with a 102nd-ranked rushing attack.
Quadrant record
By opponent strength, adjusted for where the game was played.
Projected wins
Per-game win probabilities combined across the full schedule.
The resume
Every game on the schedule. Click a row for the game breakdown (played) or the matchup projection (upcoming).
| Wk | Opponent | Conf | Opp rank | Result | Exp. margin | Win prob | GameScore | Quad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @ Alabama | SEC | #4 | L 7–56 | -33.2 | 0% | -18.2 | Q1 |
| 2 | @ Missouri | SEC | #8 | L 19–23 | -29.8 | 0% | 16.2 | Q1 |
| 3 | vs Murray State | MVFC | — | W 35–14 | +20.8 | 100% | -6.4 | Q4 |
| 4 | vs Colorado State | Mountain West | #97 | L 23–31 | +3.3 | 0% | -21.2 | Q4 |
| 5 | @ Western Kentucky | Conference USA | #69 | L 10–31 | -7.8 | 0% | -19.7 | Q3 |
| 6 | vs Jacksonville State | Conference USA | #62 | L 30–45 | -2.9 | 0% | -16.5 | Q4 |
| 7 | vs Louisiana Tech | Conference USA | #126 | W 31–23 | +12.1 | 100% | -13.1 | Q4 |
| 8 | @ Liberty | Conference USA | #23 | L 35–42 | -20.4 | 0% | 4.0 | Q2 |
| 10 | @ New Mexico State | Conference USA | #65 | L 7–13 | -7.1 | 0% | -7.5 | Q3 |
| 11 | vs FIU | Conference USA | #123 | W 40–6 | +17.0 | 100% | 7.5 | Q4 |
| 12 | vs UTEP | Conference USA | #121 | W 34–30 | +9.0 | 100% | -15.3 | Q4 |
| 13 | @ Sam Houston | Conference USA | #118 | L 20–23 | +2.0 | 0% | -14.2 | Q4 |
12 played · 4-8. Expected margin and gamescore use the latest ratings — a completed game shows what the model would say now, not that week.
The season
The model’s read on Middle Tennessee, recomputed after every week. Toggle between overall, offensive, and defensive efficiency (each with a dot for that week’s game) or the FanBoardHQ CFP rank.
Passing & rushing
Opponent-adjusted, FBS-only. The bar is the blended Eff rank — EPA/play (scoring value), success rate (staying on schedule), and yards/play (explosiveness), each standardized against the FBS field. The three ranks below each bar are those components, so you can see what's driving it.
Their offense vs. what their defense allows.
Scored vs. allowed, all regular-season games.
What kind of team is this?
Every team by offensive and defensive efficiency (points/game vs. an average team, higher is better on both). Click a dot for that team.
Field position 92nd · Finishing 103rd
Field position 100th · Finishing 73rd
1.86 points per drive on offense, 2.08 allowed — starting, on average, at their own 29.
Play-calling & efficiency
What the offense did, by quarter and by down — raw, not opponent-adjusted.
| Quarter (att.) | Pass / rush | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(185) | 62% / 38% | 40% | 6.0 |
| Q2(225) | 56% / 44% | 39% | 6.1 |
| Q3(193) | 53% / 47% | 42% | 5.5 |
| Q4(204) | 58% / 42% | 39% | 6.0 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(170) | 10.2 | 44% | 7.0 |
| 2nd(159) | 7.9 | 37% | 6.6 |
| 3rd(115) | 8.1 | 35% | 6.1 |
| 4th(16) | 6.4 | 44% | 8.1 |
| All (460) | — | 39% | 6.7 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(175) | 9.9 | 43% | 5.2 |
| 2nd(102) | 7.3 | 31% | 3.6 |
| 3rd(64) | 4.9 | 50% | 5.8 |
| 4th(6) | 2.5 | 50% | 7.0 |
| All (347) | — | 41% | 4.9 |
Middle Tennessee, all games.