Mississippi State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.0671st
• 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.
  Offense41.2%38th
  Defense41.1%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.116th
  Defense+1.2837th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0030th
  Defense+0.0167th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense+0.1171st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%50th
  Defense45.4%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%25th
  Defense31.0%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0065th
  Defense2.8162nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%90th
  Defense19.5%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%12th
  Defense16.1%45th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   LSU
2. L
   ARK
3. L
   UK
4. L
   TA&M
5. L
   ALA
6. W
   VAN
7. L
   UGA
8. L
   MISS
9. L
   AUB
10. W
    MIZ
11. W
    TLSA

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

Players, 2020

1. Will RogersQB312 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 73rd of 212 QBs
   0.45WAR−0.10 to 1.00
2. Dillon JohnsonRB83 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 128th of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.20 to 0.30
3. Woody MarksRB116 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 138th of 338 RBs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.33
4. Jaden WalleyWR63 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 15th of 409 WRs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.30
5. Osirus MitchellWR52 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 30th of 409 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
6. Kylin HillRB42 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 243rd of 338 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. K.J. CostelloQB210 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 158th of 212 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.27 to 0.47
8. Malik HeathWR49 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 176th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73973924th of 127Roster talent: 739, 24th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22422424th of 127Recruiting: 224, 24th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%91st of 127Returning production: 50%, 91st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.478th of 127SP+ rating: −1.4, 78th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 MISSQ4 2:08 4th & 7 at MISS 7, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs ARKQ4 12:58 4th & 2 at MSST 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs AUBQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at AUB 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs VANQ3 4:21 4th & 2 at MSST 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs AUBQ3 10:30 4th & 3 at AUB 22, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TA&MQ2 0:35 4th & 22 at TA&M 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs VANQ2 9:24 4th & 2 at VAN 7, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs MIZQ4 6:40 4th & 2 at MIZ 42, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

80th of 127 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

   LSU
2. L

   ARK
3. L

   UK
4. L

   TA&M
5. L

   ALA
6. W

   VAN
7. L

   UGA
8. L

   MISS
9. L

   AUB
10. W

    MIZ
11. W

    TLSA

What moved it, 2020

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−0.74
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• LSUW 44-34 at LSU17% → 97%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ARKL 14-21 vs ARK87% → 8%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• UKL 2-24 at UK41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• TA&ML 14-28 vs TA&M34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• ALAL 0-41 at ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• VANW 24-17 vs VAN91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 24-31 at UGA5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• MISSL 24-31 at MISS24% → 11%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +1
• AUBL 10-24 vs AUB32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• MIZW 51-32 vs MIZ50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 28-26 vs TLSA54% → 77%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +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.