Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1572nd
  Defense+0.2014th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%53rd
  Defense47.1%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2572nd
  Defense+1.1855th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1069th
  Defense+0.1714th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2267th
  Defense+0.2815th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%47th
  Defense50.9%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%55th
  Defense38.2%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0374th
  Defense3.259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%52nd
  Defense14.6%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%19th
  Defense14.2%19th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   FAMU
2. L
   TCU
3. L
   TA&M
4. W
   NMSU
5. L
   SC
6. L
   ALA
7. L
   AUB
8. W
   MISS
9. W
   CCU
10. L
    LSU
11. L
    MSST
12. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2017

1. Austin AllenQB180 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 115th of 226 QBs
   0.53WAR0.22 to 0.85
2. David WilliamsRB108 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 54th of 352 RBs
   0.40WAR0.32 to 0.49
3. Cole KelleyQB119 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 138th of 226 QBs
   0.38WAR0.13 to 0.63
4. Devwah WhaleyRB102 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 151st of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
5. Blake JohnsonP45 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 18th of 95 punters
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.21
6. Deon StewartWR37 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Jonathan NanceWR34 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Cheyenne O'GradyTE19 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 65th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71771723rd of 130Roster talent: 717, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21821825th of 130Recruiting: 218, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%76th of 128Returning production: 57%, 76th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.1+2.163rd of 128SP+ rating: +2.1, 63rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.07 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. vs TCUQ2 2:12 4th & 2 at TCU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs MSSTQ2 5:17 4th & 8 at ARK 27, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs AUBQ4 9:44 4th & 12 at AUB 34, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs MSSTQ4 14:52 4th & 3 at ARK 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs AUBQ2 10:00 4th & 2 at ARK 10, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs MIZQ3 10:30 4th & 4 at ARK 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at MISSQ1 1:17 4th & 4 at MISS 27, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at LSUQ2 7:36 4th & 2 at ARK 18, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

112th of 130 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

   FAMU
2. L

   TCU
3. L

   TA&M
4. W

   NMSU
5. L

   SC
6. L

   ALA
7. L

   AUB
8. W

   MISS
9. W

   CCU
10. L

    LSU
11. L

    MSST
12. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2017

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−1.41
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• FAMUW 49-7 vs FAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TCUL 7-28 vs TCU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• TA&ML 43-50 vs TA&M58% → 26%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −21
• NMSUW 42-24 vs NMSU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• SCL 22-48 at SC56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• ALAL 9-41 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• AUBL 20-52 vs AUB13% → 14%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• MISSW 38-37 at MISS45% → 91%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• CCUW 39-38 vs CCU95% → 80%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −15: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 10-33 at LSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13
• MSSTL 21-28 vs MSST16% → 11%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• MIZL 45-48 vs MIZ24% → 13%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −31, Clock −3

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.