Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.228th
• 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.
  Offense38.1%11th
  Defense46.1%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0227th
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0610th
  Defense+0.365th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.9%6th
  Defense49.9%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%26th
  Defense37.9%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9858th
  Defense2.9836th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%50th
  Defense21.8%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense25.4%5th
  Defense18.4%30th

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, 2019

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
   PRST
2. L
   MISS
3. W
   CSU
4. L
   SJSU
5. L
   TA&M
6. L
   UK
7. L
   AUB
8. L
   ALA
9. L
   MSST
10. L
    WKU
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2019

1. Rakeem BoydRB143 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 62nd of 349 RBs
   0.49WAR0.37 to 0.63
2. Nick StarkelQB140 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 142nd of 228 QBs
   0.39WAR0.16 to 0.61
3. Ben HicksQB109 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 187th of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.01 to 0.38
4. Devwah WhaleyRB65 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 214th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Connor LimpertPK14 plays · +0.501 pts/play · 45th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Mike WoodsWR38 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Cheyenne O'GradyTE31 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 30th of 207 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
8. Trey KnoxTE42 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 35th of 207 TEs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.11

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70870826th of 130Roster talent: 708, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521529th of 130Recruiting: 215, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%106th of 130Returning production: 40%, 106th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.6−10.6108th of 130SP+ rating: −10.6, 108th 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, 2019

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 UKQ4 2:36 4th & 15 at UK 22, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.0 pts
2. vs SJSUQ4 10:31 4th & 3 at ARK 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs MIZQ4 11:25 4th & 6 at MIZ 36, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at UKQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at midfield, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at MISSQ3 14:16 4th & 1 at ARK 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs PRSTQ3 8:38 4th & 4 at PRST 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs SJSUQ3 5:01 4th & 4 at SJSU 29, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs CSUQ2 11:41 4th & 2 at CSU 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

125th 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

   PRST
2. L

   MISS
3. W

   CSU
4. L

   SJSU
5. L

   TA&M
6. L

   UK
7. L

   AUB
8. L

   ALA
9. L

   MSST
10. L

    WKU
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2019

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−2.36
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• PRSTW 20-13 vs PRST96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +1
• MISSL 17-31 at MISS39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• CSUW 55-34 vs CSU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• SJSUL 24-31 vs SJSU91% → 6%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• TA&ML 27-31 vs TA&M6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• UKL 20-24 at UK39% → 8%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −3
• AUBL 10-51 vs AUB10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• ALAL 7-48 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• MSSTL 24-54 vs MSST31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• WKUL 19-45 vs WKU52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −54, Possession & field position −1
• LSUL 20-56 at LSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MIZL 14-24 vs MIZ17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −28, Clock −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.