Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1975th
  Defense+0.1349th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%67th
  Defense45.8%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2236th
  Defense+1.1880th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense+0.1237th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3382nd
  Defense+0.1462nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%74th
  Defense48.6%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.0%32nd
  Defense38.9%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9763rd
  Defense3.1427th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%66th
  Defense18.3%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%69th
  Defense14.2%23rd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   UGA
2. W
   MSST
3. L
   AUB
4. W
   MISS
5. L
   TA&M
6. W
   TENN
7. L
   FLA
8. L
   LSU
9. L
   MIZ
10. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2020

1. Feleipe FranksQB288 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 52nd of 212 QBs
   0.64WAR0.14 to 1.20
2. Trelon SmithRB134 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 45th of 338 RBs
   0.42WAR0.32 to 0.51
3. Rakeem BoydRB83 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 114th of 338 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.34
4. Treylon BurksWR68 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 21st of 409 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
5. KJ JeffersonQB50 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 155th of 212 QBs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.22
6. Mike WoodsWR40 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 147th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. AJ ReedPK11 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 48th of 97 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Blake KernTE18 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 57th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71971926th of 127Roster talent: 719, 26th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421429th of 127Recruiting: 214, 29th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%58th of 127Returning production: 67%, 58th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.658th of 127SP+ rating: +1.6, 58th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 LSUQ4 7:30 4th & 1 at ARK 16, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at MSSTQ4 4:39 4th & 1 at ARK 18, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs TENNQ3 0:07 4th & 3 at TENN 31, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs LSUQ4 12:42 4th & 4 at LSU 4, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at FLAQ3 7:07 4th & 1 at ARK 32, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at AUBQ4 11:37 4th & 5 at AUB 5, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs MISSQ4 5:30 4th & 5 at ARK 48, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MIZQ3 6:36 4th & 7 at MIZ 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

35th of 127 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. L

   UGA
2. W

   MSST
3. L

   AUB
4. W

   MISS
5. L

   TA&M
6. W

   TENN
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   LSU
9. L

   MIZ
10. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2020

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−0.27
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.76

Game by game

• UGAL 10-37 vs UGA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• MSSTW 21-14 at MSST13% → 92%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• AUBL 28-30 at AUB17% → 7%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +1
• MISSW 33-21 vs MISS51% → 97%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −1
• TA&ML 31-42 at TA&M14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• TENNW 24-13 vs TENN43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −2
• FLAL 35-63 at FLA13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• LSUL 24-27 vs LSU47% → 7%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• MIZL 48-50 at MIZ47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position −1
• ALAL 3-52 vs ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6

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.