Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.3298th
  Defense+0.2011th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense51.7%98th
  Defense48.5%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2365th
  Defense+1.1569th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1891st
  Defense+0.1225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5199th
  Defense+0.3013th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.3%97th
  Defense52.6%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.6%95th
  Defense39.5%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2393rd
  Defense2.6969th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%83rd
  Defense21.0%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%77th
  Defense2.3%67th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2015

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Arkansas allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   UTEP
2. L
   TOL
3. L
   TTU
4. L
   TA&M
5. W
   TENN
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   AUB
8. W
   UTM
9. W
   MISS
10. W
    LSU
11. L
    MSST
12. W
    MIZ
13. W
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2015

1. Brandon AllenQB355 plays · +0.306 pts/play · 25th of 205 QBs
   2.03WAR1.50 to 2.65
2. Alex CollinsRB233 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 79th of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.08 to 0.50
3. Drew MorganWR65 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 36th of 411 WRs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.36
4. Kody WalkerRB58 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 208th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
5. Cole HedlundPK13 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 92nd of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Jared CorneliusWR25 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 279th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Keon HatcherWR11 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 366th of 411 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Hunter HenryTE60 plays · +0.008 pts/play · 17th of 189 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.12 to 0.12

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Arkansas's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69569525th of 128Roster talent: 695, 25th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21921924th of 128Recruiting: 219, 24th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%13th of 127Returning production: 89%, 13th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.2+19.214th of 128SP+ rating: +19.2, 14th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Arkansas's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at TENNQ4 5:08 4th & 4 at TENN 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs AUBQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at AUB 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at LSUQ3 5:33 4th & 2 at LSU 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs TTUQ3 2:00 4th & 4 at TTU 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at ALAQ3 0:23 4th & 5 at ARK 41, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs KSUQ2 2:08 4th & 2 at KSU 9, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs TA&MQ4 4:11 4th & 8 at TA&M 40, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs MIZQ3 10:23 4th & 3 at ARK 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

69th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arkansas's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UTEP
2. L

   TOL
3. L

   TTU
4. L

   TA&M
5. W

   TENN
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   AUB
8. W

   UTM
9. W

   MISS
10. W

    LSU
11. L

    MSST
12. W

    MIZ
13. W

    KSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Arkansas's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.47
• Possession & field position+0.17
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• UTEPW 48-13 vs UTEP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TOLL 12-16 vs TOL92% → 24%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +3
• TTUL 24-35 vs TTU78% → 2%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −61, Clock −4
• TA&ML 21-28 vs TA&M42% → 23%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −19
• TENNW 24-20 at TENN29% → 96%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• ALAL 14-27 at ALA16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• AUBW 54-46 vs AUB68% → 94%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts −12
• UTMW 63-28 vs UTM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MISSW 53-52 at MISS25% → 91%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +18
• LSUW 31-14 at LSU26% → 99%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +63, Clock +3
• MSSTL 50-51 vs MSST60% → 23%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −38, Clock −4
• MIZW 28-3 vs MIZ84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• KSUW 45-23 vs KSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17

Points of win probability, from Arkansas's side.

Closest call

ARK 41-38 TCU (2016) - Arkansas dropped to a 2.1% win probability before pulling it out.