Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1764th
  Defense+0.2013th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%77th
  Defense42.4%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2134th
  Defense+1.424th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0330th
  Defense+0.1516th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4496th
  Defense+0.3019th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%71st
  Defense46.7%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%88th
  Defense34.1%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2675th
  Defense3.0253rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%25th
  Defense17.9%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%59th
  Defense15.7%44th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   CIN
2. W
   SC
3. W
   MOST
4. L
   TA&M
5. L
   ALA
6. L
   MSST
7. W
   BYU
8. W
   AUB
9. L
   LIB
10. L
    LSU
11. W
    MISS
12. L
    MIZ
13. W
    KU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2022

1. KJ JeffersonQB409 plays · +0.373 pts/play · 5th of 234 QBs
   2.85WAR2.08 to 3.70
2. Raheim SandersRB231 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 5th of 384 RBs
   0.76WAR0.50 to 0.98
3. Matt LandersWR52 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 16th of 455 WRs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.41
4. AJ Green Jr.RB69 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 192nd of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
5. Trey KnoxTE28 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 48th of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
6. Jadon HaselwoodWR66 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.02 to 0.19
7. Cam LittlePK14 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 41st of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Warren ThompsonWR15 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 352nd of 455 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74174126th of 129Roster talent: 741, 26th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022024th of 129Recruiting: 220, 24th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%43rd of 128Returning production: 68%, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.0+12.029th of 129SP+ rating: +12.0, 29th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.14 of the 0.19 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 12:40 4th & 2 at MIZ 2, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs LSUQ4 4:00 4th & 10 at LSU 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
3. vs MOSTQ3 2:02 4th & 4 at MOST 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at MIZQ4 2:56 4th & 7 at ARK 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at MSSTQ2 12:05 4th & 1 at ARK 10, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MIZQ3 1:43 4th & 4 at MIZ 28, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs CINQ2 7:52 4th & 2 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs CINQ2 4:12 4th & 3 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

76th of 131 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

   CIN
2. W

   SC
3. W

   MOST
4. L

   TA&M
5. L

   ALA
6. L

   MSST
7. W

   BYU
8. W

   AUB
9. L

   LIB
10. L

    LSU
11. W

    MISS
12. L

    MIZ
13. W

    KU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.13
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.20
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• CINW 31-24 vs CIN74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• SCW 44-30 vs SC73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• MOSTW 38-27 vs MOST96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• TA&ML 21-23 at TA&M42% → 11%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position +2
• ALAL 26-49 vs ALA12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• MSSTL 17-40 at MSST30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Clock +1
• BYUW 52-35 at BYU50% → 98%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +51, Clock +1
• AUBW 41-27 at AUB62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• LIBL 19-21 vs LIB88% → 4%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• LSUL 10-13 vs LSU43% → 6%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MISSW 42-27 vs MISS55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• MIZL 27-29 at MIZ62% → 14%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• KUW 55-53 vs KU60% → 71%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +11: Timeouts −20, Clock +19

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.