Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0314th
  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.
  Offense39.7%20th
  Defense47.6%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1218th
  Defense+1.1182nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0536th
  Defense+0.1326th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0114th
  Defense+0.3014th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.7%16th
  Defense51.8%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.
  Offense32.5%43rd
  Defense36.5%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8642nd
  Defense3.249th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%35th
  Defense14.4%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.0%1st
  Defense16.1%50th

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, 2018

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
   EIU
2. L
   CSU
3. L
   UNT
4. L
   AUB
5. L
   TA&M
6. L
   ALA
7. L
   MISS
8. W
   TLSA
9. L
   VAN
10. L
    LSU
11. L
    MSST
12. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2018

1. Ty StoreyQB176 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 148th of 225 QBs
   0.43WAR0.16 to 0.70
2. Rakeem BoydRB104 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 125th of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.26 to 0.41
3. Cole KelleyQB69 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 172nd of 225 QBs
   0.26WAR0.13 to 0.38
4. Devwah WhaleyRB56 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 223rd of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
5. Connor LimpertPK19 plays · +0.459 pts/play · 10th of 112 kickers
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
6. Chase HaydenRB46 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 263rd of 351 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
7. Cheyenne O'GradyTE30 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 19th of 204 TEs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
8. La'Michael PettwayWR30 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 311th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69569527th of 130Roster talent: 695, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221230th of 130Recruiting: 212, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%56th of 129Returning production: 67%, 56th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.5+4.553rd of 130SP+ rating: +4.5, 53rd of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 CSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at midfield, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
2. at MSSTQ3 7:45 4th & 15 at ARK 20, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.1 pts
3. vs VANQ3 8:39 4th & 7 at VAN 37, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
4. vs TLSAQ2 6:07 4th & 5 at TLSA 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
5. vs UNTQ2 9:27 4th & 5 at UNT 36, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs LSUQ4 12:37 4th & 10 at LSU 11, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs MISSQ2 2:36 4th & 4 at MISS 20, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. at AUBQ3 3:29 4th & 1 at ARK 18, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

126th 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

   EIU
2. L

   CSU
3. L

   UNT
4. L

   AUB
5. L

   TA&M
6. L

   ALA
7. L

   MISS
8. W

   TLSA
9. L

   VAN
10. L

    LSU
11. L

    MSST
12. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2018

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−2.15
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• EIUW 55-20 vs EIU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• CSUL 27-34 at CSU86% → 8%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −2
• UNTL 17-44 vs UNT63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• AUBL 3-34 at AUB3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• TA&ML 17-24 at TA&M9% → 4%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• ALAL 31-65 vs ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• MISSL 33-37 vs MISS33% → 17%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −2
• TLSAW 23-0 vs TLSA66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• VANL 31-45 vs VAN52% → 2%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• LSUL 17-24 vs LSU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• MSSTL 6-52 at MSST6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• MIZL 0-38 at MIZ6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8

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.