Author Archives: Joel Hollingsworth

Watch: Gator Bowl highlights, + Santiago Vescovi

https://twitter.com/Vol_Football/status/1213614642452406278

Read: Where in the world has Santiago Vescovi been?

If you read only one thing about the Vols today . . .

. . . make it this, from 247Sports:

Other Vols stuff worth reading today

  1. Rucker: Vescovi gives Vols reason for hope, via 247Sports
  2. Johnson explains decision to leave Vols for Florida State, via 247Sports
  3. Rick Barnes doesn’t have answers for slumping Jordan Bowden, via 247Sports

Behind the paywalls

  • The story of Tennessee’s season told by the people who played and coached it – The Athletic, via The Athletic
  • Rexrode: From Jacksonville 2020 to Atlanta 2021, a Tennessee football championship contention plan – The Athletic, via The Athletic
  • Inside Tennessee’s onside kick, Jeremy Pruitt’s prediction and the offense’s weird night – The Athletic, via The Athletic
  • Tennessee takeaways: What we learned rewatching the Vols’ dramatic Gator Bowl win – The Athletic, via The Athletic
  • DL Bailey ready to help ‘build something special’ with Vols, via 247Sports
  • Mays hoping to ‘get a leg up’ with Vols as early enrollee, via 247Sports

Tennessee-Indiana: Head-to-head statistical rankings

Below is a look at Tennessee’s national stat rankings side-by-side with the counterpart rankings for the Indiana Hoosiers. Bottom line for this week: Don’t take Indiana lightly, especially the Hoosiers defense or their offensive passing attack. But if the Vols offense can find success in the passing game and the defense can force a one-dimensional attack into long third downs and then win those plays, Tennessee should be able to win.

Details below.

When the Vols have the ball

Where’s the opportunity?

It looks like maybe the Tennessee Volunteers offense is going to have to jab these guys a few times to see what they’re made of. The Hoosiers defense generally has better numbers than the Volunteers offense, but only because mediocre beats bad, and those bad numbers are season-long accumulations that don’t really reflect what the Vols offense has become late in the season. Indiana does not appear to be a threat to intercept the ball, and they’re very generous in the red zone. That, combined with Tennessee’s o-line able to protect Jarrett Guarantano pretty well, says to me that the best opportunity to explore first for the Vols offense is in the passing game.

Where’s the danger?

Overall, Indiana’s total defense numbers are much, much better than the Vols’ total offense numbers. The Hoosiers are particularly good on first down, so expect some challenges there unless Jim Chaney busts out some plays that both break tendencies and work.

Gameplan for the Vols on offense

Careful with these guys. Indiana’s not known for football, but they’re a good team this year, particularly on defense. We should find out fairly early if and how much of a difference there is between third in the SEC East and fourth in the Big 10 East. Let’s hope there is a difference and that it is significant. If not, Tennessee will need to devote some time early to discovering what works and what doesn’t. I’m assuming Tennessee will roll out a balanced attack, but I’m also expecting most of any success to come through the air.

Vols on defense

Where’s the opportunity?

Season-long statistics suggest that the Indiana offense and the Tennessee defense are pretty evenly matched overall. However, those numbers also suggest that Indiana is one-dimensional, that the Hoosiers either don’t want to or can’t run the ball very well. Jeremy Pruitt and Derrick Ansley should have an advantage over a one-dimensional team, and if Indiana just chucks it up there too many times, Tennessee’s got the ability to get some picks.

Where’s the danger?

Indiana’s passing offense is Top 15 in the nation, and even though Tennessee’s ability to minimize passing yards is just outside the Top 15, if the Hoosiers get into a groove through the air, it could spell trouble. They’re especially good on third downs, so getting off the field on defense will be especially important.

Gameplan for the Vols on defense

The first order of business is to establish that Indiana’s offensive attack is one-dimensional and that the running game isn’t the primary threat. Once that’s done, they should be able to redirect some resources to pass defense. Force Indiana into long and dangerous third-down situations where the Vols DBs will have interception opportunities. If you can’t create turnovers, at least get off the field and give the ball back to the offense.

Special teams

Marquez Calloway has a huge opportunity to impact the game with his punt return ability Thursday.

Turnovers and penalties

Wow. These guys look really undisciplined in the penalty categories. They do appear to be better at causing and recovering fumbles.

See also

Predicting the Tennessee-Indiana game using SPM comps

Tennessee-Wisconsin four-factors preview

Here’s a look at the four factors numbers for Tennessee’s game tomorrow against the Wisconsin Badgers. The conclusions are up front, just after each team’s baseline, and the details follow:

Baseline

First up, here’s what each team is doing at this point in the season:

Summary and Score Prediction

All bets are off with Tennessee scrambling to replace point guard Lamonte Turner, and it will take some time for the numbers to catch up with his absence. That said, these two teams appear to be evenly matched in most of the four factors, although the Vols defense may have more of an impact on Wisconsin than Wisconsin’s will have on Tennessee. Offensive rebounds and free-throw attempts will be at a premium.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Figure out life without Lamonte Turner.
  2. Make the most of an apparent defensive advantage, forcing Wisconsin into a subpar shooting percentage.
  3. Capitalize on offensive rebounds and free throw attempts when they’re available.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 70% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 62, Wisconsin 57.

My prediction: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: A pretty good shooting team, Wisconsin is most similar to Memphis in this regard and better than Tennessee.

Turnover %

Conclusion: Wisconsin protects the ball better than any other team the Vols have played so far this season. The most-similar prior Vols opponent is UNC Asheville.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: Tennessee is a better rebounding team than Wisconsin, who is most similar to VCU and Chattanooga among prior Vols opponents.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: The Vols also have an edge at getting to the free-throw line, although it’s not by much. The Badgers are most similar to Florida A&M in this category.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s eFG% is 48.5 (No. 199), and it will be going up against a defense that is 48.8 (No. 165).

When Wisconsin has the ball

The Badgers’ eFG% is 51.3 (No. 103), while Tennessee’s shooting defense is 42.7 (No. 13).

Conclusions

Tennessee’s offense and Wisconsin’s defense are pretty evenly matched, but the Vols’ defense has an advantage over the Badgers’ offense.

Turnover %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee has a turnover % of 19.3 (No. 159), while the Badgers’ defensive counterpart to this stat is 18.2 (No. 247).

When Wisconsin has the ball

Wisconsin’s turnover % is 17.2 (No. 48), while’s Tennessee’s ability to force turnovers is 21.2 (No. 100).

Conclusions

With the loss of Turner for the season, it’s a good thing that they’re not playing a team that is especially adept at forcing turnovers. Wisconsin generally protects the ball pretty well, but the Vols might be able to affect their ability to do so in this game.

Offensive Rebounding %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s OR% is 30.1 (No. 115). Wisconsin’s defense in that category is 24 (No. 38).

When Wisconsin has the ball

The Badgers’ OR% is 27.4 (No. 190), while the Vols’ defense in that category is 25.1 (No. 68).

Conclusions

Neither team is exactly bad at getting offensive rebounds, but they’ll both be going up against teams that are better at grabbing them for the defense. Basically, it looks like offensive rebounds are going to be at a premium.

Free Throw Rate

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s FT Rate is 35.3 (No. 110), while Wisconsin’s defense against that is 25.5 (No. 61).

When Wisconsin has the ball

The Badgers’ FT Rate is 33.1 (No. 153), while Tennessee’s defense against that is 26.8 (No. 81).

Conclusions

As with offensive rebounds, both teams are decent at getting to the foul line but will be going up against defenses that are adept at keeping opponents from doing so.

Summary and Score Prediction

All bets are off with Tennessee scrambling to replace point guard Lamonte Turner, and it will take some time for the numbers to catch up with his absence. That said, these two teams appear to be evenly matched, although the Vols defense may have more of an impact on Wisconsin than Wisconsin’s will have on Tennessee. Offensive rebounds and free throw attempts will be at a premium.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Figure out life without Lamonte Turner.
  2. Make the most of an apparent defensive advantage, forcing Wisconsin into a subpar shooting percentage.
  3. Capitalize on offensive rebounds and free throw attempts when they’re available.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 70% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 62, Wisconsin 57.

My prediction: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Go Vols.

Tennessee-Cincinnati four-factors preview

Here’s a look at the four factors numbers for Tennessee’s game tonight against the Cincinnati Bearcats. The conclusions are up front, and the details follow:

Summary and Score Prediction

Tennessee shouldn’t shoot as poorly tonight as it did against Memphis Saturday, and the Vols defense is still plenty capable of frustrating the Bearcats into missing shots. I wouldn’t expect rebounding or turnovers to be deciding factors unless one of the teams has an out-of-character game.

The real danger for the Vols comes at getting to the foul line. They can get there some themselves, but how well they keep the Bearcats away from the charity stripe may be what decides this game.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Defend without fouling.
  2. Shoot better than they did Saturday.
  3. Don’t get out of character in rebounding or turnovers.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 52% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 65, Cincinnati 64. The line is currently Tennessee -1.5.

My prediction: Tennessee 68, Cincinnati 64

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: Most like VCU, and quite a bit better shooting the ball than Tennessee.

Turnover %

Conclusion: Most like prior opponent Florida A&M in this category, the Bearcats are happy to turn the ball over. Well, maybe not happy, but they’ll do it. Tennessee’s better.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: Cincinnati is not bad at rebounding the ball (most like former opponent UNC Asheville), but Tennessee’s better.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: Yikes. The Bearcats are better at getting to the free throw line than any team we’ve played to date, including Memphis, which was also in the Top 15. The Vols are not bad at this, but man, these guys have a Fast Pass to the stripe.

Those are the straight-up comparisons of the teams’ respective averages in the four factors, but what about the fact that those numbers are impacted in any given game by the opponent?

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s eFG% is 47.9 (No. 222) (down from 50.6 (No. 131)), and it will be going up against a defense that is 45.8 (No. 78). For reference, Memphis was 41.5 (No. 12) Saturday when the Vols put up a stench of a shooting percentage.

When Cincinnati has the ball

The Bearcats’ eFG% is 50.3 (No. 142), while Tennessee’s shooting defense is 40.8 (No. 5).

Conclusions

The Bearcats are no slouches at defending, but they’re not up to the level of Memphis, so Tennessee should do better tonight than they did Saturday shooting the ball. And their shooting percentage defense is still elite.

Turnover %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee has a turnover % of 19.6 (No. 181), up from 20.3 (No. 218) last week. The Bearcats’ defensive counterpart to this stat is 18.9 (No. 210). Memphis’ was 23.3 (No. 41) heading into last Saturday’s game.

When Cincinnati has the ball

Cincinnati’s turnover % is 21.6 (No. 281) (Memphis’ was 19.7 (No. 187)), while’s Tennessee’s ability to force turnovers is 20.8 (No. 111), up from 20.2 (No. 142).

Conclusions

Tennessee appears to have a slight advantage in the turnover department this evening.

Offensive Rebounding %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s OR% is 31.2 (No. 88), which is down from 32.3 (No. 70) Saturday. Cincinnati’s defense in that category is 26.4 (No. 100). That makes them better than Memphis, which was 31.1 (No. 271) prior to Saturday’s game.

When Cincinnati has the ball

The Bearcats’ OR% is 30.2 (No. 116) (Memphis’ was 34.8 (No. 31)), while the Vols’ defense in that category is 23.7 (No. 41).

Conclusions

This looks pretty even to me on Tennessee’s side of the court, and the Vols appear to have a slight advantage on the Bearcats’ side.

Free Throw Rate

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s FT Rate is 38.8 (No. 57) (down from 40 (No. 42)), while Cincinnati’s defense against that is 26.5 (No. 78). For reference, Memphis was 35.3 (No. 248).

When Cincinnati has the ball

The Bearcats’ FT Rate is 45.7 (No. 5), compared to Memphis’, which was 44.9 (No. 6). Tennessee’s defense against that is 26.4 (No. 77), up from 26.8 (No. 84).

Conclusions

These guys are much better than Memphis at keeping you off the foul line, and they are elite at getting there themselves. The Vols are going to have to figure out how to defend without breathing on them or looking at them.

Summary and Score Prediction

Tennessee shouldn’t shoot as poorly tonight as it did against Memphis Saturday, and the Vols defense is still plenty capable of frustrating the Bearcats into missing shots. I wouldn’t expect rebounding or turnovers to be deciding factors unless one of the teams has an out-of-character game.

The real danger for the Vols comes at getting to the foul line. They can get there some themselves, but how well they keep the Bearcats away from the charity stripe may be what decides this game.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Defend without fouling.
  2. Shoot better than they did Saturday.
  3. Don’t get out of character in rebounding or turnovers.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 52% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 65, Cincinnati 64. The line is currently Tennessee -1.5.

My prediction: Tennessee 68, Cincinnati 64

Go Vols.

Predicting the Tennessee-Indiana game using SPM comps

The TaxSlayer Bowl pitting the Tennessee Volunteers against the Indiana Hoosiers opened with Indiana as a slight 1.5-point favorite. It has since flipped so that now the Vols are a 1.5-point favorite. Regardless, Vegas is expecting a close game. Here’s what the GRT Statsy Preview Machine has to say about this year’s Gator Bowl and whether I think it’s right or wrong.

Vols-Hoosiers

From the perspective of Tennessee

Tennessee’s points:

  • Tennessee scoring offense for the season: 24.3
  • Indiana scoring defense for the season: 24.5

The Indiana scoring defense is most similar to the following prior Tennessee opponent(s) (FBS only):

  • BYU 24.4
  • South Carolina 26.1

Early in the season, Tennessee scored 26 points against BYU, but got 41 against the Gamecocks as the Vols began to find their stride. Taken together, that 133% of what those teams usually give up, so the SPM estimates 32.6 points for the Vols against Indiana.

Indiana’s points:

  • Tennessee scoring defense for the season: 21.7
  • Indiana scoring offense for the season: 32.6

The Indiana scoring offense is most similar to the following prior Tennessee opponent(s):

  • Georgia State 32.4
  • Florida 33

Florida scored 34 points against the Vols, and Georgia State scored 38. That’s slightly more than what those teams scored over the course of the season, and the SPM translates that into 35.9 points for Indiana against Tennessee.

Estimated score: Tennessee 32.6, Indiana 35.9

From the perspective of Indiana

Indiana’s points:

  • Indiana scoring offense for the season: 32.6
  • Tennessee scoring defense for the season: 21.7

The Tennessee scoring defense is most similar to the following prior Indiana opponent(s) (FBS only):

  • Michigan State 22.7
  • Northwestern 23.6

Indiana scored 31 points against Michigan State and 34 against Northwestern, 141% of what those teams usually give up. That makes the estimated points for Indiana against the Vols 30.6.

Tennessee’s points:

  • Indiana scoring defense for the season: 24.5
  • Tennessee scoring offense for the season: 24.3

The Tennessee scoring offense is most similar to the following prior Indiana opponent(s):

  • Maryland 25.3
  • Purdue 25.8

Maryland got 28 against Indiana, and Purdue got 41, meaning Indiana’s defense allowed the two closest comps 135% of what they usually score. Estimated points for Tennessee against Indiana: 32.8.

Estimated score: Indiana 30.6, Tennessee 32.8

SPM Final Estimates

Throw it in, cook it up, take a peek:

SPM Final estimated score: Tennessee 32.7, Indiana 33.2

SPM Final estimated spread: Indiana -.5

Difference between the SPM and the Vegas opening spread: 1

Those numbers are the SPM’s way of warning you not to put too much confidence in the outcome of this game one way or the other.

Eyeball adjustments

Here’s the thing. I think the estimates of Tennessee’s points are too low and the estimates of Indiana’s points are too high. From the Vols’ perspective, the comps include a BYU game that was really early in a long season of continued improvement. Just using South Carolina as the comp would make the estimated points for the Vols from this perspective 38.

And I feel like Indiana’s estimated points are too high because the comps are Georgia State and Florida, two games very early in the season before the defense began to improve. Against teams not named Alabama, the Tennessee defense allowed an average of only 13.5 points against teams that together averaged 23.6 points. If you use that data, the estimated points for Indiana from the Vols’ perspective would be only 19.

All of that would make the Vols’ perspective spit out Tennessee 38, Indiana 19. I don’t think the machine is quite as wrong as that, but the difference is enough to make me think this isn’t the pick ’em everybody and everything thinks it is.

So, my eyeball-adjusted prediction is Tennessee 35, Indiana 28. The SPM is imitating Vegas’ shrug on this one, but I like the Vols by a touchdown.

Other predictions from other systems

As I said before, Indiana opened as a 1.5-point favorite, and it has since shifted to the Vols being a 1.5-point favorite. With an over/under of around 49, that translates to something like Tennessee 25, Indiana 24.

ESPN’s FPI gives the Vols a 52.3% chance of winning.

I haven’t seen SP+ bowl picks yet, but when I see them I’ll add the Tennessee-Indiana prediction here.

Bottom line

The SPM gives only half a point to Indiana in this game, and it’s about as far from being confident against the spread as it can get. I think the eyes see something the machines can’t, and so I like the Vols by a touchdown.

  • Vegas (current): Tennessee, -1.5 (~Tennessee 25, Indiana 24)
  • SP+: (TBD)
  • SPM: Tennessee 32.7, Indiana 33.2 (Vols don’t cover)
  • Me: Tennessee 35, Indiana 28 (Vols cover)

What do y’all think?

Tennessee-Memphis four-factors preview

Here’s a look at the four factors numbers for Tennessee’s game this Saturday against the Memphis Tigers. The conclusions are up front, and the details follow:

Summary and Score Prediction

Both teams are playing really good defense and have an opportunity to frustrate the other into poor shooting percentages. Tennessee’s charitable heart on turnovers could be disastrous against a team as greedy for turnovers as Memphis, but the Vols could make up some ground in rebounding, especially on the offensive boards. Both teams should have plenty of opportunities at the foul line, so hitting those when you get there is probably even more important than usual.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Protect the ball.
  2. Make the most of an apparent rebounding advantage.
  3. Win the Free Throw Rate battle and shoot a higher percentage of free throws when you get there.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 70% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 74, Memphis 68.

My prediction: Tennessee 78, Memphis 72

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

  • Tennessee 50.6 (No. 131)
  • Memphis 52.2 (No. 81)

Tennessee and its prior opponents:

Conclusion: Among Tennessee’s prior opponents, Memphis is most like Florida State at shooting the ball. They’re quite a bit better than the Vols.

Turnover %

  • Tennessee 20.3 (No. 218)
  • Memphis 19.7 (No. 187)

Tennessee and its prior opponents:

Conclusion: Neither team is especially good at protecting the ball, but Memphis is better. Among the Vols’ prior opponents, they’re most like VCU and Florida State.

Offensive Rebound %

  • Tennessee 32.3 (No. 70)
  • Memphis 34.8 (No. 31)

Tennessee and its prior opponents:

Conclusion: Memphis will be the best-rebounding team the Vols have played to date. Fortunately, Tennessee’s no slouch in this category, either.

Free Throw Rate

  • Tennessee 40 (No. 42)
  • Memphis 44.9 (No. 6)

Tennessee and its prior opponents:

Conclusion: Again, Memphis will be the best team the Vols have played when it comes to getting to the free-throw line. They compare best to Murray State at this point among prior Vols’ opponents. Tennessee is no slouch in this category, but Memphis appears to be clearly better at this point.

Those are the straight-up comparisons of the teams’ respective averages in the four factors, but what about the fact that those numbers are impacted in any given game by the opponent?

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s eFG% is 50.6 (No. 131), and it will be going up against a defense that is 41.5 (No. 12).

When Memphis has the ball

The Tigers’ eFG% is 52.2 (No. 81), while Tennessee’s shooting defense is 41.1 (No. 5).

Conclusions

Both teams are going to make it more difficult than usual for the other to shoot well.

Turnover %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee is still struggling with a turnover % of 20.3 (No. 218). The Tigers’ defensive counterpart to this stat is 23.3 (No. 41).

When Memphis has the ball

Memphis’ turnover % is 19.7 (No. 187), while’s Tennessee’s ability to force turnovers is 20.2 (No. 142).

Conclusions

Expect some frustration at Tennessee’s tendency to turn the ball over because it will be exacerbated by Memphis’ better-than-most ability to force turnovers.

Offensive Rebounding %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s OR% is 32.3 (No. 70), and Memphis’ defense in that category is 31.1 (No. 271).

When Memphis has the ball

The Tigers’ OR% is 34.8 (No. 31), while the Vols’ defense in that category is 22.6 (No. 14).

Conclusions

The Vols have a huge advantage in rebounding under their own basket, largely because the Tigers aren’t very good there. Memphis is better on their own side of the court, but the Vols still have an advantage on that end. Bottom line: The Vols have an advantage rebounding the ball.

Free Throw Rate

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s FT Rate is 40 (No. 42), while Memphis’ defense against that is 35.3 (No. 248).

When Memphis has the ball

The Tigers’ FT Rate is 44.9 (No. 6), while Tennessee’s defense against that is 26.8 (No. 84).

Conclusions

Both teams know how to get to the line. Memphis is marginally better at it than Tennessee, but Tennessee is much better at keeping their opponents off the line. Here’s to hoping that that translates into more trips for the Vols.

Summary and Score Prediction

Both teams are playing really good defense and have an opportunity to frustrate the other into poor shooting percentages. Tennessee’s charitable heart on turnovers could be disastrous against a team as greedy for turnovers as Memphis, but the Vols could make up some ground in rebounding, especially on the offensive boards. Both teams should have plenty of opportunities at the foul line, so hitting those when you get there is probably even more important than usual.

The goals for the Vols:

  1. Protect the ball.
  2. Make the most of an apparent rebounding advantage.
  3. Win the Free Throw Rate battle and shoot a higher percentage of free throws when you get there.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 70% chance of winning and puts the score at Tennessee 74, Memphis 68.

My prediction: Tennessee 78, Memphis 72

Go Vols.

The Jim Chaney Effect: Vols get better, Bulldogs get worse

Last January, we made a list of reasons that Jeremy Pruitt hiring Jim Chaney away from Georgia was a very good thing. Chaney’s offenses were incredibly and consistently productive, he was a good fit with Pruitt and Knoxville, he had decades of experience, and he seemed to be the perfect combination of both excellence and stability.

One of the biggest reasons we were juiced about the hire, though, was the notion that it not only made Tennessee better, it made Georgia worse.

Well, is it true? Here is a comparison of Tennessee’s offensive stats from the end of the 2018 regular season to the end of the 2019 regular season:

Helping yourself

If the table above doesn’t display well, try using this link.

Let’s start with the concession that not everything improved. The quarterbacks threw more interceptions (11 this year to 5 last year) and the offense got worse in the red zone this season. And despite any improvement in other areas, you can’t really say that the offense is humming.

But there was improvement in many offensive categories. Total Offense, Scoring Offense, and Rushing Offense all improved. The offense was better on first downs and more explosive in the passing game, and it was much better on third down this year than last. The biggest improvement came in keeping guys from getting tackled behind their own line of scrimmage.

If that doesn’t really move the needle for you, consider this: The Jim Chaney Effect doesn’t really show up until his second season behind the wheel.

As Will wrote in our 2019 Vols magazine, Chaney’s offense at Georgia in 2016 ranked only 74th in SP+, averaging 5.44 yards per play and 24.5 points per game. For the sake of comparison, his 2019 offense at Tennessee averaged 4.38 yards per play and 24.3 points per game. Worse on yards, about the same on points.

His 2017 offense at Georgia, though, climbed all the way to 7th in SP+ (6.7 yards per play and 35.4 points per game), and then went to 3rd in SP+ in 2018 with 7.05 yards per play and 37.9 points per game.

Here’s a tweet to prove it:

Bottom line, Tennessee’s offense has already improved in Jim Chaney’s first year, and it’s not at all unreasonable for Vols fans to expect to see a huge improvement in 2020.

Hurting your rival

What about Georgia? Your eyeballs are insisting that the Bulldogs missed Chaney something terrible this year. The numbers concur:

The 2019 Bulldogs’ offense was fine protecting the quarterback and the line of scrimmage and even held steady in the red zone. But it was worse at everything else. The Bulldogs went from 18th to 60th in Total Offense, from 14th to 51st in Scoring Offense, and from 16th to 37th in Rushing Offense even though they still had Deandre Swift and a stable of studs. The Passing Offense wasn’t needed in 2018, and the numbers got no better this year when it was.

Yes, the Georgia Bulldogs’ offense got dramatically worse this year, and it’s because Jim Chaney left for Tennessee.

Sam wins Week 15 of the 2019 GRT Pick ‘Em, PAVolFan wins the season

Congratulations to Sam, who finished first in Week 15 of the 2019 GRT Pick ‘Em with a record of 9-1 and 53 confidence points.

I went all in on a couple of upsets to sprint to the finish line and fell on my face instead. I should have known about that UAB game — duh — but I have to admit that LSU’s domination of Georgia really took me by surprise. I think Jim Chaney matters, y’all.

Here are the full results for this week:

Rank Player W-L Points Tiebreaker
1 Sam 9-1 53 20-29
2 Phonies 8-2 52 20-30**
2 LuckyGuess 9-1 52 20-31
2 joeb_1 9-1 52 23-28
2 Jahiegel 8-2 52 26-31
2 alanmar 9-1 52 27-38
2 hounddog3 8-2 52 32-33
8 rollervol 9-1 51 17-27**
8 wedflatrock 8-2 51 20-31
8 GeorgeMonkey 8-2 51 20-35
8 bluelite 8-2 51 24-31
8 jfarrar90 8-2 51 27-31
8 Hjohn 8-2 51 28-31
8 UTSeven 8-2 51 24-40
15 corn from a jar 8-2 50 14-35**
15 ctull 8-2 50 17-28
15 patmd 8-2 50 17-28
15 rsbrooks25 8-2 50 18-35
15 DinnerJacket 8-2 50 13-28
15 Anaconda 8-2 50 27-32
15 boro wvvol 8-2 50 28-31
15 vols95 8-2 50 21-42
15 PAVolFan 8-2 50 28-38
24 cnyvol 8-2 49 20-24**
24 birdjam 8-2 49 21-23
24 keepontruckin 7-3 49 20-31
24 PensacolaVolFan 8-2 49 10-30
24 Crusher 8-2 49 31-34
24 Hixson Vol1 8-2 49 23-44
30 Wilk21 9-1 48 14-42
31 TennVol95 in 3D! 7-3 47 21-27**
31 Neil Neisner 7-3 47 14-24
31 Raven17 7-3 47 17-42
34 C_hawkfan 8-2 46 27-28**
34 ltvol99 8-2 46 24-41
34 trdlgmsr 7-3 46 0-0
37 memphispete 7-3 44 24-35**
37 TennRebel 6-4 44 27-24
39 HUTCH 8-2 43 13-48
40 tbone 6-4 42 24-31
41 mmmjtx 6-4 41 21-24**
41 ddayvolsfan 7-3 41 24-34
41 claireb7tx 6-4 41 28-35
41 Rossboro 6-4 41 0-0
45 Harley 7-3 39 17-31
46 Timbuktu126 7-3 37 14-17
47 Will Shelton 6-4 35 27-24
48 Bulldog 85 4-6 33 0-0
49 Joel @ GRT 6-4 32 24-21
50 ga26engr 5-5 31 34-32
51 mariettavol 1-9 10 -
52 Knottfair 0-10 9 -
52 Aaron Birkholz 0-10 9 -
52 mmb61 0-10 9 -
52 UTVols18 0-10 9 -
52 Salty Seth 0-10 9 -
52 Teri28 0-10 9 -
52 tpi 0-10 9 -
52 ChuckieTVol 0-10 9 -
52 Jayyyy 0-10 9 -
52 aaron217 0-10 9 -
52 If you ain’t first you’re 0-10 9 -
52 tallahasseevol 0-10 9 -
52 dgibbs 0-10 9 -
52 waltsspac 0-10 9 -
52 Willewillm 0-10 9 -
52 daetilus 0-10 9 -
52 Orange Swarm 0-10 9 -
52 Dmorton 0-10 9 -
52 RockyPopPicks 0-10 9 -
52 VillaVol 0-10 9 -
52 Jrstep 0-10 9 -
52 ed75 0-10 9 -
52 jeremy.waldroop 0-10 9 -
52 rockytopinKy 0-10 9 -
52 OriginalVol1814 0-10 9 -
52 BristVol 0-10 9 -
52 orange_devil87 0-10 9 -
52 Orange On Orange 0-10 9 -
52 VFL49er 0-10 9 -
52 doritoscowboy 0-10 9 -
52 ddutcher 0-10 9 -
52 BZACHARY 0-10 9 -
52 Caban Greys 0-10 9 -
52 cactusvol 0-10 9 -
52 Techboy 0-10 9 -
52 JLPasour 0-10 9 -
52 waitwhereami 0-10 9 -
52 Displaced_Vol_Fan 0-10 9 -

Final results for the 2019 season

And high five to PAVolFan, who holds on to win the season overall with a record of 219-71 and 2,465 confidence points. Everybody say something nice about him.

Here are the full final standings:

Rank Player W-L % Points
1 PAVolFan 219-71 75.52 2465
2 wedflatrock 216-74 74.48 2463
3 birdjam 216-74 74.48 2460
4 GeorgeMonkey 211-79 72.76 2447
5 corn from a jar 212-78 73.10 2442
6 memphispete 214-76 73.79 2425
7 LuckyGuess 209-81 72.07 2422
8 joeb_1 207-83 71.38 2401
8 C_hawkfan 222-68 76.55 2401
10 Hixson Vol1 216-74 74.48 2395
11 jfarrar90 209-81 72.07 2394
12 hounddog3 209-81 72.07 2388
13 UTSeven 201-89 69.31 2378
14 cnyvol 211-79 72.76 2366
15 trdlgmsr 204-86 70.34 2365
16 Joel @ GRT 211-79 72.76 2363
17 Anaconda 198-92 68.28 2362
18 Phonies 205-85 70.69 2351
18 boro wvvol 204-86 70.34 2351
20 Displaced_Vol_Fan 200-90 68.97 2344
21 alanmar 211-79 72.76 2339
22 Raven17 198-92 68.28 2335
23 TennRebel 200-90 68.97 2330
24 DinnerJacket 203-87 70.00 2326
25 Rossboro 200-90 68.97 2324
26 daetilus 196-94 67.59 2321
27 Bulldog 85 201-89 69.31 2318
28 mmmjtx 204-86 70.34 2316
29 ChuckieTVol 203-87 70.00 2314
30 keepontruckin 195-95 67.24 2313
31 Sam 208-82 71.72 2310
32 Harley 201-89 69.31 2291
33 Crusher 205-85 70.69 2288
34 Jahiegel 199-91 68.62 2274
34 ltvol99 211-79 72.76 2274
36 ga26engr 203-87 70.00 2264
37 ctull 192-98 66.21 2257
37 claireb7tx 199-91 68.62 2257
39 rsbrooks25 207-83 71.38 2230
40 ddayvolsfan 201-89 69.31 2207
41 tbone 191-99 65.86 2203
42 doritoscowboy 191-99 65.86 2200
43 rollervol 201-89 69.31 2196
44 bluelite 191-99 65.86 2190
45 TennVol95 in 3D! 188-102 64.83 2187
46 Wilk21 191-99 65.86 2170
47 Neil Neisner 184-106 63.45 2145
48 HUTCH 190-100 65.52 2135
49 Jayyyy 158-132 54.48 2133
50 Hjohn 185-105 63.79 2123
51 patmd 190-100 65.52 2066
52 Timbuktu126 172-118 59.31 2062
52 Orange On Orange 146-144 50.34 2062
54 mariettavol 156-134 53.79 2058
55 vols95 154-136 53.10 2047
56 PensacolaVolFan 184-106 63.45 2030
57 waitwhereami 136-154 46.90 2004
58 Knottfair 132-158 45.52 1999
59 dgibbs 136-154 46.90 1978
60 jeremy.waldroop 108-182 37.24 1896
61 VillaVol 103-187 35.52 1735
62 rockytopinKy 95-195 32.76 1730
63 Orange Swarm 85-205 29.31 1715
64 Will Shelton 58-232 20.00 1628
65 OriginalVol1814 56-234 19.31 1600
66 aaron217 63-227 21.72 1595
67 BZACHARY 74-216 25.52 1592
68 tpi 54-236 18.62 1537
69 RockyPopPicks 33-257 11.38 1530
70 Willewillm 25-265 8.62 1443
71 Jrstep 34-256 11.72 1437
72 BristVol 26-264 8.97 1418
73 Dmorton 27-263 9.31 1415
74 Caban Greys 13-277 4.48 1405
75 tallahasseevol 14-276 4.83 1395
76 orange_devil87 15-275 5.17 1393
76 If you ain�t first you�re 13-277 4.48 1393
76 JLPasour 14-276 4.83 1393
79 Aaron Birkholz 13-277 4.48 1384
80 ed75 13-277 4.48 1380
81 Salty Seth 12-278 4.14 1370
82 Techboy 11-279 3.79 1369
83 waltsspac 11-279 3.79 1366
84 cactusvol 12-278 4.14 1360
85 VFL49er 4-286 1.38 1309
86 Teri28 5-285 1.72 1262
87 UTVols18 0-290 0.00 1261
87 ddutcher 0-290 0.00 1261
87 mmb61 0-290 0.00 1261

Will will be setting up the 2019 GRT Bowl Pick ‘Em Contest soon, which I am going to dominate. You’ve been warned.

Why does the SPM like Georgia in the SEC Championship Game?

The LSU Tigers opened as a 7-point favorite over the Georgia Bulldogs in the SEC Championship Game this week, although several online sites had them as only a 3.5-point favorite. As of Friday morning, there seems to be a consensus of LSU -7. We posted earlier that the GRT Statsy Preview Machine likes Georgia to not only cover but win, but here’s the detail on how it arrived at that conclusion and whether I think it’s right.

If you’re new here and wondering what the SPM is and whether it’s reliable, check out this post.

Georgia Bulldogs vs. LSU Tigers

From the perspective of Georgia

Georgia’s points:

  • Georgia scoring offense for the season: 32.9
  • LSU scoring defense for the season: 22.1

The LSU scoring defense is most similar to the following prior Georgia opponent(s) (FBS only):

  • Tennessee 21.7
  • Texas A&M 22.7

Georgia scored only 19 points against Texas A&M but 43 against Tennessee. Based on that, the SPM estimates 30.9 points for Georgia against LSU.

LSU’s points:

  • Georgia scoring defense for the season: 10.4
  • LSU scoring offense for the season: 48.7

The LSU scoring offense is most similar to the following prior Georgia opponent(s):

  • Notre Dame 37.1
  • Auburn 34

Auburn scored only 14 points against Georgia, and Notre Dame got only 17. That’s under half of what those teams usually get, and based on that, the SPM estimates only 21.4 points for LSU against Georgia.

Estimated score: Georgia 30.9, LSU 21.4

From the perspective of LSU

LSU’s points:

  • LSU scoring offense for the season: 48.7
  • Georgia scoring defense for the season: 10.4

The Georgia scoring defense is most similar to the following prior LSU opponent(s) (FBS only):

  • Florida 14.4
  • Auburn 18.6

LSU scored 23 points against Auburn and 42 against Florida, nearly triple against the Gators, but only slightly more than what the Tigers usually allow. Based on that, the SPM estimates 20.5 points for LSU against Georgia.

Georgia’s points:

  • LSU scoring defense for the season: 22.1
  • Georgia scoring offense for the season: 32.9

The Georgia scoring offense is most similar to the following prior LSU opponent(s):

  • Florida 33
  • Auburn 34

Auburn scored 20 against LSU, and Florida got 28. Based on that, the SPM estimates 23.7 points for Georgia against LSU.

Estimated score: LSU 20.5, Georgia 23.7

SPM Final Estimates

Throw it in, cook it up, take a peek:

SPM Final estimated score: Georgia 27.3, LSU 21

SPM Final estimated spread: Georgia -6.3

Difference between the SPM and the current spread: 13.3

That difference between the SPM and the current spread makes this game one of the SPM’s favorites this week.

Eyeball adjustments

I’m uncomfortable with some of the volatility in the comps. For example, from Georgia’s perspective, LSU’s scoring defense is nearly identical to both Tennessee’s and Texas A&M’s, but Georgia got 43 against Tennessee and only 19 against A&M. I feel like A&M has pretty much been the same team all year, but the Vols have improved since they played Georgia, and Georgia’s offense seems to have regressed a bit. Basically, I think the estimate for Georgia’s points from Georgia’s perspective of 30.9 is a bit high. I’m thinking more like 24.

The same can be said of LSU’s points from LSU’s perspective. Georgia’s defense is not only much better than the two closest comps of Florida and Auburn, LSU’s results against those comps vary greatly, getting only slightly more against Auburn than what the Tigers usually give up but nearly triple against the Gators of what they usually give up. If Florida is a different team now than it was when those results were posted, then I think LSU’s estimated points of 20.5 might be a bit high as well. On the other hand, LSU’s offense has the feel of a juggernaut, so despite all of that, I’m inclined think that maybe it has that one pegged.

So, my eyeball-adjusted prediction is Georgia 24, LSU 21. I don’t like Georgia as much as the SPM does, but I still like them to not only cover but win outright.

Other predictions from other systems

As I said before, LSU opened as 7-point favorites from most sources, and those that had it there stayed there while the other sites adjusted to get there. With an over/under of 55 or so, that translates to something like LSU 31, Georgia 24.

Bill Connelly’s SP+ likes LSU 29-26, and gives the Tigers a 56% chance of winning.

ESPN’s FPI gives LSU a 55.7% chance of winning.

Bottom line

The SPM likes Georgia to not only cover the -7 spread, it likes the Bulldogs to win outright, and the game is actually in its “favorites” category. After eyeball adjustments, I don’t like them quite as much, but I do also like them to not only cover but win.

  • Vegas: LSU -7 (~LSU 31, Georgia 24)
  • SP+: LSU 29, Georgia 26 (doesn’t cover)
  • SPM: Georgia 27, LSU 21 (doesn’t cover)
  • Me: Georgia 24, LSU 21 (doesn’t cover)

What do y’all think?