Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1351st
  Defense+0.0767th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%21st
  Defense39.7%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2335th
  Defense+1.2745th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1153rd
  Defense+0.0180th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2246th
  Defense+0.2153rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%28th
  Defense45.6%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%25th
  Defense27.0%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3077th
  Defense2.9867th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%93rd
  Defense17.8%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%11th
  Defense18.1%78th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WCU
2. W
   KENT
3. L
   BYU
4. L
   LSU
5. L
   TA&M
6. L
   MISS
7. L
   ALA
8. L
   MSST
9. W
   FLA
10. L
    AUB
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2023

1. KJ JeffersonQB355 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 29th of 250 QBs
   1.87WAR1.22 to 2.60
2. Andrew ArmstrongWR51 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 77th of 457 WRs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.30
3. Cam LittlePK21 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 8th of 113 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
4. Raheim SandersRB50 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 204th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
5. Rashod DubinionRB79 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 240th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. AJ Green Jr.RB42 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 255th of 383 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Luke HaszTE12 plays · +0.316 pts/play · 83rd of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Ty WashingtonTE12 plays · +0.316 pts/play · 83rd of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73173132nd of 130Roster talent: 731, 32nd 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.
  58%58%54th of 128Returning production: 58%, 54th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.5+3.553rd of 130SP+ rating: +3.5, 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, 2023

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 0.04 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. vs MSSTQ3 3:54 4th & 7 at MSST 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at MISSQ2 2:36 4th & 1 at ARK 17, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at FLAQ4 12:54 4th & 4 at FLA 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at MISSQ3 10:07 4th & 7 at MISS 38, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TA&MQ3 9:20 4th & 2 at ARK 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs BYUQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at BYU 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs BYUQ4 6:21 4th & 5 at ARK 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ALAQ2 2:47 4th & 1 at ARK 34, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

131st of 133 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

   WCU
2. W

   KENT
3. L

   BYU
4. L

   LSU
5. L

   TA&M
6. L

   MISS
7. L

   ALA
8. L

   MSST
9. W

   FLA
10. L

    AUB
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2023

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−2.12
• Clock−0.28
• Timeouts+0.12
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• WCUW 56-13 vs WCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• KENTW 28-6 vs KENT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BYUL 31-38 vs BYU77% → 10%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −4
• LSUL 31-34 at LSU10% → 11%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −1
• TA&ML 22-34 vs TA&M32% → 2%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• MISSL 20-27 at MISS20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• ALAL 21-24 at ALA10% → 5%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• MSSTL 3-7 vs MSST69% → 15%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −43, Clock −5
• FLAW 39-36 at FLA40% → 88%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• AUBL 10-48 vs AUB56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts −2
• FIUW 44-20 vs FIU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MIZL 14-48 vs MIZ28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32, 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.