Arkansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1976th
  Defense+0.0858th
• 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.
  Offense48.2%92nd
  Defense41.5%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2541st
  Defense+1.1874th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1573rd
  Defense−0.0489th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2364th
  Defense+0.2135th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.6%94th
  Defense48.7%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%89th
  Defense26.9%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2173rd
  Defense2.8468th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%35th
  Defense14.6%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.9%9th
  Defense14.8%33rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UAPB
2. L
   OKST
3. W
   UAB
4. W
   AUB
5. L
   TA&M
6. W
   TENN
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   MSST
9. L
   MISS
10. L
    TEX
11. W
    LT
12. L
    MIZ
13. W
    TTU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arkansas.

Players, 2024

1. Taylen GreenQB462 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 12th of 232 QBs
   2.31WAR1.59 to 3.17
2. Ja'Quinden JacksonRB147 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 53rd of 373 RBs
   0.38WAR0.26 to 0.49
3. Andrew ArmstrongWR85 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 7th of 452 WRs
   0.31WAR0.12 to 0.50
4. Braylen RussellRB46 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 243rd of 373 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.13
5. Luke HaszTE20 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 25th of 221 TEs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
6. Rashod DubinionRB40 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 270th of 373 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Matthew ShipleyPK9 plays · +0.351 pts/play · 84th of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Tyrone BrodenWR17 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 340th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77977926th of 131Roster talent: 779, 26th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21921925th of 131Recruiting: 219, 25th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%54th of 130Returning production: 53%, 54th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.024th of 131SP+ rating: +11.0, 24th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.18 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 TA&MQ4 5:35 4th & 8 at TA&M 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at AUBQ4 12:04 4th & 1 at AUB 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at MIZQ4 11:23 4th & 3 at MIZ 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at AUBQ4 0:57 4th & 20 at AUB 20, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
5. vs TTUQ2 5:52 4th & 1 at ARK 47, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MSSTQ3 11:23 4th & 1 at MSST 13, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at MIZQ2 5:14 4th & 3 at ARK 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs TENNQ4 9:41 4th & 3 at ARK 35, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

41st of 134 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

   UAPB
2. L

   OKST
3. W

   UAB
4. W

   AUB
5. L

   TA&M
6. W

   TENN
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   MSST
9. L

   MISS
10. L

    TEX
11. W

    LT
12. L

    MIZ
13. W

    TTU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• UAPBW 70-0 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• OKSTL 31-39 at OKST27% → 8%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +13
• UABW 37-27 vs UAB93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +12
• AUBW 24-14 at AUB36% → 94%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• TA&ML 17-21 at TA&M29% → 7%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −3
• TENNW 19-14 vs TENN16% → 87%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 10-34 vs LSU42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• MSSTW 58-25 at MSST71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• MISSL 31-63 vs MISS25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• TEXL 10-20 vs TEX17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• LTW 35-14 vs LT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• MIZL 21-28 at MIZ35% → 11%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• TTUW 39-26 vs TTU39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +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.