Mississippi State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2680th
  Defense+0.0947th
• 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.
  Offense48.5%80th
  Defense41.7%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3072nd
  Defense+1.1869th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2076th
  Defense+0.0454th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4080th
  Defense+0.1648th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%77th
  Defense48.1%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.9%88th
  Defense26.1%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1255th
  Defense3.1726th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%31st
  Defense14.2%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%54th
  Defense17.2%69th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Mississippi State 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
   ULM
2. W
   MINN
3. W
   SC
4. W
   MIZ
5. L
   ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Mississippi State.

Players, 2026

1. Kamario TaylorQB142 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 23rd of 192 QBs
   0.47WAR0.27 to 0.67
2. Fluff BothwellRB73 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 18th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
3. Anthony Evans IIIWR38 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 39th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
4. Ethan PulliamP11 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 6th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
5. Kyle FerriePK5 plays · +0.343 pts/play · 29th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
6. Marquis JohnsonWR15 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Sam WestTE10 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 78th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Kolin WilsonRB4 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Mississippi State'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80580520th of 138Roster talent: 805, 20th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22522525th of 138Recruiting: 225, 25th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%84th of 136Returning production: 34%, 84th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.6+12.628th of 138SP+ rating so far: +12.6, 28th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Mississippi State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 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 SCQ3 10:13 4th & 19 at SC 23, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
2. at SCQ3 4:40 4th & 3 at SC 18, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. vs MIZQ2 0:07 4th & 9 at MIZ 9, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at MINNQ3 9:53 4th & 6 at MINN 34, up 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs ALAQ2 4:53 4th & 6 at ALA 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs MIZQ2 3:05 4th & 11 at MIZ 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs ULMQ2 8:32 4th & 2 at ULM 8, up 25Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs ULMQ3 6:52 4th & 2 at MSST 45, up 38Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

6th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Mississippi State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ULM
2. W

   MINN
3. W

   SC
4. W

   MIZ
5. L

   ALA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Mississippi State'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+1.06
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• ULMW 62-13 vs ULM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MINNW 38-13 at MINN48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +55
• SCW 41-34 at SC38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• MIZW 31-24 vs MIZ59% → 91%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 23-56 vs ALA34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from Mississippi State's side.

Closest call

MSST 38-35 ARK (2025) - Mississippi State dropped to a 6.1% win probability before pulling it out.