Mississippi State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0947th
  Defense−0.0593rd
• 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.
  Offense46.2%80th
  Defense36.0%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.034th
  Defense+1.2629th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1582nd
  Defense−0.0379th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0219th
  Defense−0.0493rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%87th
  Defense39.5%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%43rd
  Defense29.3%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3093rd
  Defense2.6078th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%94th
  Defense21.3%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%86th
  Defense21.4%96th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   CHSO
2. W
   LT
3. W
   LSU
4. L
   UGA
5. L
   AUB
6. W
   BYU
7. W
   UK
8. W
   TA&M
9. W
   MASS
10. L
    ALA
11. W
    ARK
12. L
    MISS
13. W
    LOU

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

Players, 2017

1. Nick FitzgeraldQB340 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 19th of 226 QBs
   1.89WAR1.29 to 2.48
2. Aeris WilliamsRB205 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 18th of 352 RBs
   0.61WAR0.46 to 0.75
3. Keytaon ThompsonWR47 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.13
4. Donald GrayWR31 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 336th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
5. Keith Mixon Jr.WR19 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 346th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
6. Logan CookeP42 plays · +0.010 pts/play · 71st of 95 punters
   0.01WAR−0.09 to 0.08
7. Jordan ThomasTE32 plays · +0.008 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.05
8. Farrod GreenTE8 plays · +0.026 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70170126th of 130Roster talent: 701, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21721726th of 130Recruiting: 217, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%27th of 128Returning production: 78%, 27th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.0+16.019th of 128SP+ rating: +16.0, 19th of 128 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 ALAQ4 6:30 4th & 3 at ALA 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.5 pts
2. at ARKQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at ARK 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs LOUQ3 0:55 4th & 4 at LOU 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs LSUQ3 10:53 4th & 3 at LSU 27, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at UGAQ2 7:46 4th & 4 at UGA 45, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at AUBQ1 1:30 4th & 2 at AUB 41, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs UKQ2 3:14 4th & 2 at UK 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at AUBQ2 12:18 4th & 4 at MSST 31, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

40th of 130 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

   CHSO
2. W

   LT
3. W

   LSU
4. L

   UGA
5. L

   AUB
6. W

   BYU
7. W

   UK
8. W

   TA&M
9. W

   MASS
10. L

    ALA
11. W

    ARK
12. L

    MISS
13. W

    LOU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.68
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• CHSOW 49-0 vs CHSO95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• LTW 57-21 at LT85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• LSUW 37-7 vs LSU30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 3-31 at UGA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +1
• AUBL 10-49 at AUB31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• BYUW 35-10 vs BYU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• UKW 45-7 vs UK84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• TA&MW 35-14 at TA&M62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• MASSW 34-23 vs MASS98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +6
• ALAL 24-31 vs ALA14% → 14%Before kickoff −36 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• ARKW 28-21 at ARK84% → 89%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• MISSL 28-31 vs MISS85% → 5%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• LOUW 31-27 vs LOU35% → 91%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +2

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.