Mississippi State

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+0.1142nd
  Defense+0.292nd
• 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.
  Offense39.2%20th
  Defense50.4%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4296th
  Defense+1.1486th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0635th
  Defense+0.1234th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1644th
  Defense+0.531st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%11th
  Defense53.9%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%54th
  Defense39.5%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9032nd
  Defense3.3016th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%68th
  Defense14.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.5%6th
  Defense11.1%1st

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 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
   EKU
2. L
   ASU
3. L
   TOL
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   TEX
6. L
   UGA
7. L
   TA&M
8. L
   ARK
9. W
   MASS
10. L
    TENN
11. L
    MIZ
12. L
    MISS

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

Players, 2024

1. Michael Van Buren Jr.QB198 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 101st of 232 QBs
   0.81WAR0.42 to 1.21
2. Blake ShapenQB84 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 144th of 232 QBs
   0.38WAR0.23 to 0.53
3. Davon BoothRB112 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 78th of 373 RBs
   0.32WAR0.22 to 0.42
4. Kelly AkharaiyiWR18 plays · +0.461 pts/play · 78th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Johnnie DanielsRB59 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 204th of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Kevin Coleman Jr.WR59 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.03 to 0.26
7. Kyle FerriePK8 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 96th of 114 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Seydou TraoreTE26 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 147th of 221 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.05 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74474434th of 131Roster talent: 744, 34th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21921924th of 131Recruiting: 219, 24th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%119th of 130Returning production: 19%, 119th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.1−4.186th of 131SP+ rating: −4.1, 86th 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 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 0.01 of the 0.03 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 TA&MQ3 5:18 4th & 8 at MSST 30, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
2. vs EKUQ1 0:16 4th & 1 at EKU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs TA&MQ4 0:38 4th & 22 at MSST 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at ASUQ2 13:16 4th & 4 at ASU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs ARKQ4 12:28 4th & 5 at MSST 30, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at MISSQ1 11:41 4th & 7 at MSST 28, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs FLAQ4 0:30 4th & 15 at MSST 44, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at TEXQ4 1:16 4th & 15 at MSST 44, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

121st of 134 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

   EKU
2. L

   ASU
3. L

   TOL
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   TEX
6. L

   UGA
7. L

   TA&M
8. L

   ARK
9. W

   MASS
10. L

    TENN
11. L

    MIZ
12. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2024

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−2.23
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• EKUW 56-7 vs EKU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ASUL 23-30 at ASU29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +4
• TOLL 17-41 vs TOL77% → 1%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −65, Clock −3
• FLAL 28-45 vs FLA27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• TEXL 13-35 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• UGAL 31-41 at UGA2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −7
• TA&ML 24-34 vs TA&M7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• ARKL 25-58 vs ARK29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• MASSW 45-20 vs MASS90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• TENNL 14-33 at TENN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 20-39 vs MIZ21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• MISSL 14-26 at MISS4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −9

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.