The TCU football bandwagon is a little too crowded right now

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. The case for TCU

Now that's more like it.

Between 2011-13, TCU and head coach Gary Patterson suffered one of the more ill-timed slides imaginable. After going 36-3 between 2008-10 and ranking in the F/+ top eight each year, the Horned Frogs announced that they were moving up the Big 12 and immediately suffered a backslide.

It began in their last year in the Mountain West, when they were still good (11-2, 15th) but not quite as sharp defensively. And then they lost offensive coordinator Justin Fuente and key offensive personnel and went 11-14 in their first two years in their new conference. The defense was great again, but the offense fell apart, as did their F/+ ranking: 34th in 2012, 53rd in 2013.

Still, they were close.

A 4-8 record isn't pretty, no matter how you spin it. At best, you're spinning 4-8 into 'we were a couple of breaks from a minor bowl.'

But TCU was close to something far beyond that. The Frogs managed to go 4-8 while losing just one game by more than 14 points. Their adjusted record tells us that, playing against perfectly average teams with an average number of breaks, TCU would have gone something closer to 9-3 than 4-8.

The defense went from good in September to excellent in November, while the offense went from terrible to solid. TCU was good enough to be consistently disappointing.

But those things can be rectified. ... If this team just needed one extra shot in the arm, the offensive changes could be the answer.

Those offensive changes were in the coaching booth. Patterson brought in spiffy new co-coordinators Sonny Cumbie (Texas Tech) and Doug Meacham (Houston), and the offense didn't unexpectedly lose anybody of consequence. After a couple of seasons of growing pains, junior quarterback Trevone Boykin proved ready to take on a major-conference offense.

And ... bang. The defense held steady (from 14th in Def. S&P+ to 13th) and the offense clicked (from 97th in Off. S&P+ to 17th).

Suddenly, TCU was a top-10 team again. And perhaps as importantly, their luck changed. In 2013, they were at plus-0.9 points per game in turnovers luck but suffered some untimely close-game bounces and went 1-4 in one-possession games. In 2014, those figures were plus-6.3 points per game (most turnovers luck in the country) with a 3-1 close-game record.

And when you're both really lucky and really good, you go 12-1 and rank sixth in the country in F/+.

The season-ending bowl romp against Ole Miss was perhaps the second-best performance of the season (behind Ohio State's pasting of Wisconsin), and it sent a message: after three seasons in the wilderness, TCU is back. This wasn't an out-of-nowhere surge; it was a rebound.

This is replicable. TCU returns most of its offense and plenty of familiar faces on defense. And this wasn't some inexplicable surge -- this was TCU's fourth top-10 team in seven seasons. Since 2009, TCU has spent more time playing elite-level football than not.

Granted, the hype is new -- No. 2 in Sporting News' preseason rankings, No. 2 per Bleacher Report, No. 2 per Stewart Mandel, No. 5 per Athlon, No. 6 per SI -- but TCU is not.

2. The case against TCU

That Patterson's Frogs are getting the benefit of the doubt is heartening, perhaps an acknowledgment that, despite only being a power-conference team for three seasons, the Frogs aren't new to playing elite ball.

Really, though, it's just a bowl bump. The Horned Frogs looked spectacular and angry the last time we saw them, and we're giving them the same boost that we gave Oklahoma last year and West Virginia a few years ago.

As good as they were when playing their best -- and wow, were the high points high: 42-3 over Ole Miss, 48-10 over Texas, 82-27! over Texas Tech -- there were dicey moments. They needed a pick six at home to survive an Oklahoma team that wasn't as good as everybody expected. They recovered six of nine fumbles and needed a last-second field goal in a sloppy one-point win at West Virginia. And even though their luck turned dramatically against Kansas (they recovered zero of four fumbles, and KU scored on a deflected 78-yard touchdown in the third quarter), needing a late comeback to beat an awful Jayhawks team is not a good look, even with bad bounces.

There's more reason for doubt:

• After a few years of untimely injuries, TCU suffered almost none last year. Running back B.J. Catalon missed five games (and was replaced by the even more effective Aaron Green), No. 4 receiver Deante' Gray missed two, and that was about it for the offense. On defense, the top nine linemen missed a combined one game, the top four linebackers missed zero, and the top nine defensive backs missed zero. That's an immaculate run that will be almost impossible to replicate.
• On average, interceptions make up about 22 percent of your total passes defensed (INTs plus breakups). For TCU's defense, that number was 33 percent last year; for opponents, it was 15 percent. Law of averages could have resulted in eight fewer interceptions for TCU and four more for opponents.
• While the offense remains mostly intact, the defense must replace its best tackle (Chucky Hunter), its top three linebackers (Paul Dawson, Marcus Mallet, Jonathan Anderson), and three stalwarts in the secondary (Chris Hackett, Kevin White, and Sam Carter). These seven players combined for 53.5 tackles for loss, 12 sacks, 18 interceptions, 29 breakups, and seven forced fumbles last year. The TCU D is only going to fall so far, but it's probably going to fall a bit, especially considering ...
• In February, longtime defensive coordinator Dick Bumpas retired.

I feel like a turncoat. A year ago, I was one of TCU's biggest advocates. Now, I'm wondering why we're ranking the Frogs quite as high as we are. They're going to be good, but there's plenty of reason to believe they won't match last year's heights.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 12-1 | Adj. Record: 12-1 | Final F/+ Rk: 6
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	Samford	N/A	48-14	W	74%	15.2	100%
13-Sep	Minnesota	37	30-7	W	96%	42.1	100%
27-Sep	at SMU	127	56-0	W	91%	31.8	100%
4-Oct	Oklahoma	19	37-33	W	65%	9.0	58%
11-Oct	at Baylor	10	58-61	L	65%	9.2	37%
18-Oct	Oklahoma State	75	42-9	W	94%	37.2	100%
25-Oct	Texas Tech	82	82-27	W	78%	17.8	98%
1-Nov	at West Virginia	40	31-30	W	73%	14.5	91%
8-Nov	Kansas State	26	41-20	W	89%	28.4	98%
15-Nov	at Kansas	99	34-30	W	34%	-9.6	61%
27-Nov	at Texas	53	48-10	W	92%	32.8	100%
6-Dec	Iowa State	92	55-3	W	94%	36.3	100%
31-Dec	vs. Ole Miss	5	42-3	W	100%	64.4	100%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	37.8	17	18.4	13
Points Per Game	46.5	2	19.0	8

3. A short explanation

As good as TCU's F/+ ratings were, I've heard from quite a few Frog fans regarding their team's placement as compared to that of a certain team they mopped the Georgia Dome turf with on New Year's Eve.

5. Ole Miss (9-4): 50.1%
6. TCU (12-1): 49.3%

This doesn't pass the transitive property test, but it can be explained in part by something I wrote in this year's Ohio State preview:

Only five teams put together 90th-percentile performances in at least 60 percent of their games last year.

Percentage of 2014 games in the 90th percentile or better
1. Ohio State (73%)
2. Alabama (71%)
3. Ole Miss (69%)
4. Oregon (67%)
5. Georgia (61%)

(Yes, Ole Miss. The Rebels were at 94 percent or higher in each of their first seven games before crumbling. Last three games: 23rd percentile, 96th percentile, 11th percentile.)

TCU hit the 90th percentile six times in 13 games (46 percent), which is both very good and a little bit off from these five teams. And among these six great games were five performances that landed between the 65th and 78th percentile -- good but not excellent.

The Frogs were demonstrably better than the Rebels at the end, but Ole Miss earned a lot of cachet by being the best team in the country for the first two months. So that's how you end up with something odd like that even though ... well ... scoreboard.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.95	18	IsoPPP+	128.1	16
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	46.4%	25	Succ. Rt. +	110.8	34
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	25.3	1	Def. FP+	107.0	10
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.7	38	Redzone S&P+	107.6	45
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	27.7		ACTUAL	22	-5.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	5	22	28	16
RUSHING	36	13	16	11
PASSING	7	32	33	32
Standard Downs		23	27	18
Passing Downs		22	24	19

Q1 Rk	6	1st Down Rk	17
Q2 Rk	55	2nd Down Rk	28
Q3 Rk	11	3rd Down Rk	10
Q4 Rk	38

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player

Ht, Wt

2015 Year

Rivals

247 Comp.

Comp

Att

Yards

TD

INT

Comp Rate

Sacks

Sack Rate

Yards/ Att.

Trevone Boykin

6'2, 205

Sr.

3 stars (5.6)

0.8491

301

492

3901

33

10

61.2%

22

4.3%

7.4

Matt Joeckel

12

21

134

2

1

57.1%

0

0.0%

6.4

Zach Allen

6'3, 205

So.

3 stars (5.7)

0.8361

Bram Kohlhausen

6'2, 203

Sr.

3 stars (5.6)

0.8160

Foster Sawyer

6'5, 220

RSFr.

3 stars (5.7)

0.8891

Grayson Muehlstein

6'4, 210

RSFr.

3 stars (5.6)

0.8550

4. "It starts at QB"

I was right in talking about how important the quarterback position would be for TCU. But I was wrong in predicting who would start.

I wasn't alone in assuming Texas A&M graduate transfer Matt Joeckel would win the job. In two years, Boykin had shown promise and athleticism but had struggled to develop.

His interception rate was a little too high (3.6 percent), as was his sack rate (7.7 percent), and while he was a solid mobility threat (987 non-sack rushing yards in two part-time seasons), TCU fell from 54th in Passing S&P+ in 2013 to 73rd in 2014, and his rushing wasn't enough to keep TCU's run game afloat (110th in Rushing S&P+ in 2014). And in the battle of known quantity vs. unknown quantity, we seem to go with the unknown every time.

The combination of experience and a new offensive system worked wonders. Boykin was the perfect template for the version of the air raid that Meacham and Cumbie created. He was given more short passes to complete, and while his completion rate improved by about 1.5 percent, the combination of short passing and infinitely more effective running opened up more downfield passing opportunities.

Boykin's yards per completion went up, and his interception and sack rates went down. And perhaps more importantly, both Boykin's and the running backs' rushing averages improved dramatically. Boykin rushed for 829 non-sack yards (6.4 per carry), while the duo of Green and Catalon (pre-injury) combined for 1,415 yards (6.2 per carry) and 19 scores.

And now, a year after he wouldn't even have been the betting favorite to be TCU's starter, Boykin enters as the betting favorite to win the Heisman. He was a little lucky in terms of dropped interceptions, and that might change (and Ohio State's starting quarterback, whoever that ends up being, is the real favorite), but his command of this offense was obvious.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Aaron Green	TB	5'11, 202	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9813	130	922	9	7.1	7.8	44.6%	1	0
Trevone Boykin	QB	6'2, 205	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8491	130	829	8	6.4	4.8	50.8%	5	1
B.J. Catalon	TB					98	493	10	5.0	5.7	36.7%	3	1
Trevorris Johnson	TB	5'11, 221	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8553	54	302	4	5.6	5.2	46.3%	2	1
Kyle Hicks	TB	5'10, 200	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9165	46	160	0	3.5	2.3	37.0%	0	0
Deante' Gray	WR	5'10, 175	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8700	8	88	0	11.0	4.9	100.0%	1	0
Cliff Murphy	TE					7	14	1	2.0	0.5	14.3%	0	0
Shaun Nixon	TB	5'10, 196	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9229

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Josh Doctson	WR-Z	6'3, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	117	66	1022	56.4%	22.9%	55.6%	8.7	203	8.7	129.1
Kolby Listenbee	WR-X	6'1, 183	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8729	82	41	753	50.0%	16.0%	63.4%	9.2	230	9.1	95.1
David Porter	WR-Y					53	39	392	73.6%	10.4%	62.3%	7.4	-68	7.4	49.5
Deante' Gray	WR-H	5'10, 175	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8700	50	36	582	72.0%	9.8%	72.0%	11.6	156	14.1	73.5
Ty Slanina	WR-Y	6'0, 193	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8731	46	32	383	69.6%	9.0%	56.5%	8.3	2	8.3	48.4
B.J. Catalon	TB					25	14	163	56.0%	4.9%	68.0%	6.5	-11	6.2	20.6
Ja'Juan Story	WR-X	6'4, 208	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9340	25	17	145	68.0%	4.9%	64.0%	5.8	-58	5.7	18.3
Aaron Green	TB	5'11, 202	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9813	22	19	166	86.4%	4.3%	54.5%	7.5	-53	7.7	21.0
Emanuel Porter	WR-Z	6'4, 210	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8833	19	12	154	63.2%	3.7%	73.7%	8.1	8	6.7	19.5
Desmon White	WR-H	5'7, 150	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8089	16	14	119	87.5%	3.1%	50.0%	7.4	-42	7.7	15.0
Cameron Echols-Luper	WR-H	6'0, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8588	15	9	72	60.0%	2.9%	53.3%	4.8	-38	4.7	9.1
Kyle Hicks	TB	5'10, 200	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9165	14	12	118	85.7%	2.7%	71.4%	8.4	-20	8.6	14.9
Buck Jones	TE	6'4, 255	Jr.	NR	NR
Corey McBride	WR-X	6'1, 187	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8501
Andre Petties-Wilson	WR-Y	6'1, 190	RSFr.	NR	NR
Tony James	WR	5'10, 165	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8635
Jarrison Stewart	WR	5'11, 177	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619
Jaelan Austin	WR	6'0, 192	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8600
Tre'Vontae Hights	WR	6'3, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8569
KaVontae Turpin	WR	5'9, 165	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8505

5. Keeping everybody happy

TCU's tempo was both an asset and a necessity. The Frogs needed quite a few snaps to get the ball into the hands of everybody who deserved it. Boykin rushed about 10 times per game, and the combination of Green, Catalon and two freshman running backs carried 25 times. Josh Doctson was targeted nine times per game, Kolby Listenbee about six, three others about four each, seven others once or twice each.

Just about everybody produced, too. Four of the top five receivers averaged at least 8.3 yards per target, Catalon was fine, and Green was a revelation. After averaging only about five carries per game before Catalon's injury, he averaged 17 carries for 108 yards over the final five games.

The distribution could get even more interesting. Catalon and No. 3 target David Porter are gone, but that's pretty much it. Green, Doctson, and Listenbee will lead the way, and Deante' Gray and Ty Slanina will play a role. But now Johnson and Hicks and receivers Emanuel Porter and Desmond White are sophomores, and redshirt freshmen Shaun Nixon and Corey McBride might force their way into the rotation. (Plus, quarterback Zach Allen might pull a Boykin and spend time running routes.)

Can TCU raise the tempo even more?

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	109.5	3.36	2.85	44.8%	63.6%	19.4%	121.1	2.4%	8.3%
Rank	37	14	102	16	95	69	39	15	79

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Joey Hunt	C	6'3, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8755	26	2014 2nd All-Big 12
Halapoulivaati Vaitai	RT	6'6, 308	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9050	20	2014 2nd All-Big 12
Tayo Fabuluje	LT					24
Aviante Collins	LT	6'6, 295	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8398	23
Jamelle Naff	LG	6'4, 325	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8681	15
Brady Foltz	RG	6'4, 320	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8331	13
Patrick Morris	RG	6'3, 288	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619	1
Bobby Thompson	LG	6'6, 310	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8625	0
Joseph Noteboom	RT	6'5, 310	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8482	0
Austin Schlottman	C	6'6, 280	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8220	0
Matt Pryor	RT	6'7, 350	So.	NR	NR	0
Frank Kee	RG	6'4, 330	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8594	0
Ty Barrett	OL	6'5, 316	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8767
Ryan Griswold	RT	6'5, 270	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8227
Trey Elliott	LT	6'4, 280	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7944
Sam Awolope	OT	6'6, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8713
Jozie Milton	C	6'2, 310	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8569
Cordel Iwuagwu	C	6'3, 290	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8469

6. So many seniors

There's plenty of reason to get excited about TCU's offense in 2016 and beyond; A&M transfer Kenny Hill will join some exciting youngsters in the race to replace Boykin, and young running backs and receivers have shown flashes of brilliance.

Still, 2016 will see a blood transfusion. Boykin, Green, Doctson, Listenbee, and Gray are all seniors. So are five of the six returning linemen with starting experienced. The only non-senior who has started up front: guard Patrick Morris, who did so just once. This line was pretty good (but not great) last year but will begin as one of the most experienced in the country with 98 career starts. This offense is loaded with experience; we'll worry about next year next year.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.85	70	IsoPPP+	121.3	20
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	33.7%	5	Succ. Rt. +	122.3	8
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	35.2	3	Off. FP+	112.1	1
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.0	32	Redzone S&P+	112.2	25
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	29.2		ACTUAL	40.0	+10.8

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	18	9	7	20
RUSHING	9	5	7	8
PASSING	77	29	12	44
Standard Downs		11	7	27
Passing Downs		16	23	18

Q1 Rk	20	1st Down Rk	10
Q2 Rk	19	2nd Down Rk	45
Q3 Rk	9	3rd Down Rk	7
Q4 Rk	5

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	123.3	2.15	3.02	30.0%	53.7%	26.3%	110	5.1%	8.6%
Rank	6	2	39	4	5	6	40	50	43

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
James McFarland	DE	6'3, 248	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8820	13	35.0	4.8%	12.0	7.0	1	3	3	0
Chucky Hunter	DT					13	32.5	4.5%	9.5	3.0	0	0	1	0
Mike Tuaua	DE	6'3, 253	Sr.	NR	0.7000	12	23.5	3.2%	8.5	5.0	0	4	3	0
Davion Pierson	DT	6'2, 305	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8400	13	22.5	3.1%	8.0	3.5	0	1	0	0
Josh Carraway	DE	6'4, 250	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	13	21.5	2.9%	5.0	2.0	1	0	1	0
Aaron Curry (Nebraska)	DT	6'2, 280	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8673	13	18.5	2.6%	3.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Terrell Lathan	DE	6'5, 280	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8731	13	17.5	2.4%	10.0	4.5	0	1	1	1
Chris Bradley	DT	6'2, 255	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8174	13	8.5	1.2%	2.0	1.5	0	0	0	0
Tevin Lawson	DT	6'4, 280	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8882	13	8.0	1.1%	1.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Bryson Henderson	DE	6'6, 275	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8510	9	4.0	0.5%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
L.J. Collier	DE	6'4, 275	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8379
Casey McDermott Vai	DT	6'4, 276	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8148
Breylin Mitchell	DE	6'4, 255	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8832
Joseph Broadnax	DT	6'0, 305	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8593
Tpia Galea'i	DE	6'5, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8495

7. A 4-2-5 isn't supposed to stop the run like this

Put as generally as possible, when you move from a 4-3 alignment to a 4-2-5, you're sacrificing about 30 pounds of run-defending girth (a 230-pound third linebacker) for extra speed in pass defense (a 200-pound third safety). That doesn't seem like a lot, but it hints at one of the issues with attempting a nickel look: run defense. When the nickel fails, it fails because it's getting pushed around.

That's not a problem for TCU. For more than a decade, Patterson and Bumpas made the 4-2-5 defense look a lot easier to implement. Despite a wonderful secondary, TCU was far better at defending the run than the pass last fall. The Frogs pulled off the tough combination of great short-yardage success and an invasive presence in the backfield.

So how much of this was because of the line, and how much was because of incredible linebackers Paul Dawson and Marcus Mallet? It's a chicken vs. egg debate -- the line cleared the way for the linebackers to make plays, and the linebackers wrecked shop far beyond what a 4-2-5 linebacking corps is supposed to. And safeties Derrick Kindred and Chris Hackett did a nice job of playing both near to and far from the line of scrimmage.

Kindred's back, as are all but one lineman. Ends James McFarland and Mike Tuaua made for an active duo, and Nebraska transfer Aaron Curry joins senior Davion Pierson at tackle. But only one returning linebacker had more than six tackles, and in the post-spring depth chart, three of the top four linebackers were either true or redshirt freshmen. If he maintains his spot on the two-deep, the first play of Mike Freeze's career will be as the starting middle linebacker for a top-10 team. Considering the impact last year's LBs had, that's pretty scary.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Paul Dawson	SLB					13	108.5	14.9%	20.0	6.0	4	5	2	0
Marcus Mallet	MLB					13	78.5	10.8%	11.5	1.5	1	2	3	0
Jonathan Anderson	MLB					13	25.5	3.5%	4.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Sammy Douglas	SLB	6'3, 215	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8469	13	14.0	1.9%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Paul Whitmill	SLB	6'0, 230	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8768	12	6.0	0.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ty Summers	MLB	6'2, 230	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7744
Mike Freeze	MLB	6'3, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8453
Alec Dunham	SLB	6'1, 213	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8572
Semaj Thomas	LB	6'2, 225	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8593

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Derrick Kindred	FS	5'10, 210	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	13	71.0	9.7%	4.5	0	4	5	1	1
Chris Hackett	WS					13	63.0	8.6%	3.5	0	7	6	1	0
Kevin White	CB					13	47.5	6.5%	4	1	2	11	0	0
Sam Carter	SS					13	42.5	5.8%	0.5	0	4	5	0	0
Ranthony Texada	CB	5'10, 170	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8500	13	28.5	3.9%	3.5	1	1	7	0	0
Kenny Iloka	WS	6'2, 209	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8625	13	14.5	2.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Denzel Johnson	SS	6'2, 205	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7926	13	14.0	1.9%	1	0	0	1	0	0
George Baltimore	SS	6'0, 205	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8609	13	6.5	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Geoff Hooker	FS					13	5.5	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nick Orr	CB	5'10, 166	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8377	12	3.0	0.4%	0	0	1	0	0	0
Torrance Mosley	CB	5'10, 160	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8382	5	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Corry O'Meally	CB	6'0, 170	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7959	8	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Travin Howard	SS	6'1, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8315
Steve Wesley	FS	6'0, 175	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8796
Cyd Calvin	CB	6'1, 175	So.	3 stars (5.5)	NR
Ridwan Issahaku	SS	6'1, 180	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8294
DeShawn Raymond	CB	6'1, 180	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9001
Niko Small	S	5'10, 187	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8482

8. Just so much to replace in the back 7

The turnover doesn't stop at linebacker. Kindred's return gives TCU a potential All-American at free safety, a player capable of both contributing to big-play prevention and making tons of havoc plays. Corner Ranthony Texada was a revelation as a freshman, and upperclassmen like Kenny Iloka and Denzel Johnson saw some reps last year.

But in losing Hackett, Carter and White and replacing them with some combination of career reserves (Johnson, Iloka, Corry O'Meally) and unproven youngsters (corners Torrance Mosley and Nick Orr; safeties Travin Howard, George Baltimore and Ridwan Issahaku), TCU is likely to regress in pass defense. [Update: George Baltimore will miss the season with a shoulder injury.] And if the run defense falters at all without killer linebackers, or if new co-coordinators Demontie Cross and Chad Glasgow need time to get their sea legs, one could see this defense temporarily falling out of the Def. S&P+ top 15.

There are no long-term issues here. As long as Patterson is the head coach, the TCU D will be fine. But when you lose seven impressive contributors and your coordinator, you're probably going to take a step backwards in the short-term.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Ethan Perry	6'4, 230	Sr.	64	39.2	5	27	29	87.5%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Jaden Oberkrom	6'3, 187	Sr.	78	61.0	30	1	38.5%
Ryan DeNucci			31	63.2	17	1	54.8%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Jaden Oberkrom	6'3, 187	Sr.	76-77	16-18	88.9%	6-9	66.7%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Cameron Echols-Luper	KR	6'0, 190	Jr.	9	11.4	0
B.J. Catalon	KR			8	31.8	1
Cameron Echols-Luper	PR	6'0, 190	Jr.	33	10.6	1

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	8
Field Goal Efficiency	10
Punt Return Efficiency	24
Kick Return Efficiency	68
Punt Efficiency	34
Kickoff Efficiency	25
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	123

9. Tilting the field, then tilting it some more

TCU had a pretty much perfect field position team. The Frogs got some breaks in that department, but an efficient offense, a crazy-efficient defense and phenomenal special teams unit sealed the deal.

TCU's field position margin was plus-9.9, easily the best in the country. Only one other team was better than plus-9 (Memphis, coached by Patterson's former protege Justin Fuente), and only three others (Georgia, Ohio State, Nebraska) were better than plus-6.5.

Luck will probably turn, and the defense will probably be a little less efficient. But the Frogs still have Ethan Perry's unreturnable punts, Jadem Oberkrom's kickoffs (and big-legged place-kicking), and Cameron Echols-Luper returning punts. The Frogs maybe need a new kick returner, but this unit will still be a strength, and even with bad luck, TCU will still be a good field position team.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk
3-Sep	at Minnesota	42
12-Sep	Stephen F. Austin	NR
19-Sep	SMU	117
26-Sep	at Texas Tech	53
3-Oct	Texas	36
10-Oct	at Kansas State	33
17-Oct	at Iowa State	86
29-Oct	West Virginia	40
7-Nov	at Oklahoma State	43
14-Nov	Kansas	95
21-Nov	at Oklahoma	10
27-Nov	Baylor	14

Five-Year F/+ Rk	31.0% (17)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	49 / 38
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	18 / 1.6
2014 TO Luck/Game	+6.3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	14 (9, 5)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	11.4 (0.6)

10. Landmines galore

TCU probably won't benefit from six points of turnovers luck and minimal injuries this year. The defense will still be mostly sound but will probably suffer a few more glitches. A few more of Boykin's passes that bounced off of defenders' hands last year might stick. A road upset bid from a Kansas State or Texas Tech might succeed.

It's going to be really difficult for TCU to match last year's run at the College Football Playoff, in other words. As high as I usually am on TCU, I fear expectations might be a little high considering the turnover on D, the tricky road schedule (five road opponents projected 53rd or better) and the likely change in random fortune.

That said, TCU is still going to be top-15 good, perhaps top-10 good. Again, this isn't unfamiliar territory for a team that dominated in the late portion of the last decade, The depth of experience on offense and on the defensive line should assure that, even with more bad bounces, TCU's in position to win nine or 10 games and perhaps take down Baylor in the season finale to still win the conference.

But as I wrote in the Baylor preview, I don't think the Frogs are the safest bet this year.