Mississippi State

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+0.0213th
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense36.0%5th
  Defense42.3%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2959th
  Defense+1.1976th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0327th
  Defense+0.0270th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0510th
  Defense+0.2538th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.5%5th
  Defense48.0%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.3%20th
  Defense28.9%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9123rd
  Defense2.9370th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%5th
  Defense19.2%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%46th
  Defense15.6%34th

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 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
   SELA
2. W
   ARIZ
3. L
   LSU
4. L
   SC
5. L
   ALA
6. W
   WMU
7. W
   ARK
8. L
   AUB
9. L
   UK
10. L
    TA&M
11. W
    USM
12. L
    MISS

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

Players, 2023

1. Will RogersQB207 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 132nd of 250 QBs
   0.46WAR−0.01 to 0.94
2. Mike Wright Jr.QB124 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 142nd of 250 QBs
   0.39WAR0.13 to 0.65
3. Lideatrick GriffinWR61 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 34th of 457 WRs
   0.26WAR0.13 to 0.37
4. Woody MarksRB122 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 117th of 383 RBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.32
5. Zavion ThomasWR50 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 122nd of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.22
6. Kyle FerriePK18 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 53rd of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Keelan CrimminsP42 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 69th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Justin RobinsonWR20 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 278th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74674628th of 130Roster talent: 746, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21821824th of 130Recruiting: 218, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%53rd of 128Returning production: 58%, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.5+0.561st of 130SP+ rating: +0.5, 61st 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 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. at ARKQ4 1:14 4th & 1 at ARK 11, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs ARIZQ3 4:08 4th & 1 at MSST 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at SCQ3 2:00 4th & 2 at SC 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs MISSQ3 2:52 4th & 1 at MSST 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs ALAQ4 12:33 4th & 11 at MSST 42, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
6. at AUBQ4 2:55 4th & 8 at AUB 13, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at SCQ4 2:13 4th & 4 at SC 29, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UKQ4 5:58 4th & 18 at UK 18, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

85th of 133 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

   SELA
2. W

   ARIZ
3. L

   LSU
4. L

   SC
5. L

   ALA
6. W

   WMU
7. W

   ARK
8. L

   AUB
9. L

   UK
10. L

    TA&M
11. W

    USM
12. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2023

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−0.98
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.21
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• SELAW 48-7 vs SELA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ARIZW 31-24 vs ARIZ71% → 88%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −16
• LSUL 14-41 vs LSU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• SCL 30-37 at SC31% → 2%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• ALAL 17-40 vs ALA15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• WMUW 41-28 vs WMU92% → 98%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• ARKW 7-3 at ARK31% → 85%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Clock +5
• AUBL 13-27 at AUB31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• UKL 3-24 vs UK38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• TA&ML 10-51 at TA&M12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• USMW 41-20 vs USM88% → 90%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −2
• MISSL 7-17 vs MISS24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −33, Clock −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.