Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1562nd
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%53rd
  Defense45.4%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.329th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0020th
  Defense+0.226th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3287th
  Defense+0.1164th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%23rd
  Defense51.2%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.9%93rd
  Defense32.8%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5910th
  Defense3.0243rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%13th
  Defense18.3%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%22nd
  Defense17.1%63rd

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, 2016

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
   LT
2. W
   TCU
3. W
   TXST
4. L
   TA&M
5. W
   ALCN
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   MISS
8. L
   AUB
9. W
   FLA
10. L
    LSU
11. W
    MSST
12. L
    MIZ
13. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2016

1. Austin AllenQB348 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 53rd of 218 QBs
   1.35WAR0.73 to 1.97
2. Rawleigh Williams IIIRB210 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 19th of 347 RBs
   0.71WAR0.52 to 0.94
3. Drew MorganWR73 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 34th of 417 WRs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
4. Devwah WhaleyRB86 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 162nd of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.30
5. Toby BakerP49 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 11th of 82 punters
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
6. Keon HatcherWR53 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 76th of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.26
7. Jared CorneliusWR40 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 202nd of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Kody WalkerRB22 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 257th of 347 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68968927th of 128Roster talent: 689, 27th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21921925th of 128Recruiting: 219, 25th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%106th of 128Returning production: 40%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.9+7.947th of 128SP+ rating: +7.9, 47th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.24 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 MIZQ4 0:54 4th & 20 at MIZ 20, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.6 pts
2. vs MISSQ4 12:29 4th & 1 at ARK 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at TCUQ3 10:24 4th & 1 at ARK 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at MIZQ4 12:42 4th & 2 at ARK 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at TA&MQ4 14:00 4th & 3 at TA&M 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs MISSQ2 2:12 4th & 2 at MISS 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs MISSQ2 14:13 4th & 1 at MISS 24, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs ALAQ4 11:56 4th & 10 at ALA 23, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

40th 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

   LT
2. W

   TCU
3. W

   TXST
4. L

   TA&M
5. W

   ALCN
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   MISS
8. L

   AUB
9. W

   FLA
10. L

    LSU
11. W

    MSST
12. L

    MIZ
13. L

    VT

What moved it, 2016

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+0.32
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• LTW 21-20 vs LT92% → 95%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• TCUW 41-38 at TCU33% → 88%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• TXSTW 42-3 vs TXST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• TA&ML 24-45 at TA&M38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• ALCNW 52-10 vs ALCN100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ALAL 30-49 vs ALA17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• MISSW 34-30 vs MISS27% → 96%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• AUBL 3-56 at AUB11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• FLAW 31-10 vs FLA39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +52
• LSUL 10-38 vs LSU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• MSSTW 58-42 at MSST52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• MIZL 24-28 at MIZ66% → 5%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• VTL 24-35 at VT30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2

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.