Mississippi State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0837th
  Defense+0.1623rd
• 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.
  Offense41.5%38th
  Defense44.2%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2767th
  Defense+1.2552nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0746th
  Defense+0.1327th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1443rd
  Defense+0.2136th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%54th
  Defense50.0%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%38th
  Defense30.7%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8130th
  Defense3.411st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%39th
  Defense14.3%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%14th
  Defense13.5%18th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   USM
2. W
   ASU
3. W
   ALCN
4. W
   NIU
5. L
   TENN
6. L
   TA&M
7. L
   FLA
8. L
   TEX
9. W
   ARK
10. L
    UGA
11. L
    MIZ
12. L
    MISS
13. L
    WAKE

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

Players, 2025

1. Blake ShapenQB373 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 103rd of 231 QBs
   0.77WAR0.09 to 1.34
2. Kamario TaylorQB110 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 118th of 231 QBs
   0.63WAR0.41 to 0.83
3. Brenen ThompsonWR73 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 17th of 451 WRs
   0.33WAR0.19 to 0.47
4. Davon BoothRB138 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 46th of 365 RBs
   0.30WAR0.22 to 0.39
5. Fluff BothwellRB132 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 65th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.35
6. Ethan PulliamP39 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 5th of 100 punters
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
7. Kyle FerriePK18 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 23rd of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Anthony Evans IIIWR88 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 176th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.09 to 0.28

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77077024th of 134Roster talent: 770, 24th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22322325th of 134Recruiting: 223, 25th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%53rd of 132Returning production: 42%, 53rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.1+4.157th of 134SP+ rating: +4.1, 57th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.11 of the 0.15 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 TENNQ4 14:09 4th & 7 at MSST 33, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. vs TEXQ3 8:46 4th & 1 at MSST 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs TENNQ2 0:05 4th & 1 at MSST 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at ARKQ4 0:48 4th & 5 at ARK 18, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. at TA&MQ3 5:49 4th & 1 at MSST 17, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs TEXQ4 1:47 4th & 1 at MSST 22, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at USMQ2 8:11 4th & 1 at MSST 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs WAKEQ4 2:35 4th & 11 at MSST 24, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

97th of 136 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

   USM
2. W

   ASU
3. W

   ALCN
4. W

   NIU
5. L

   TENN
6. L

   TA&M
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   TEX
9. W

   ARK
10. L

    UGA
11. L

    MIZ
12. L

    MISS
13. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2025

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−1.72
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.94

Game by game

• USMW 34-17 at USM86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +3
• ASUW 24-20 vs ASU35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• ALCNW 63-0 vs ALCN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NIUW 38-10 vs NIU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• TENNL 34-41 vs TENN32% → 25%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position +2
• TA&ML 9-31 at TA&M11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +4
• FLAL 21-23 at FLA23% → 10%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +5
• TEXL 38-45 vs TEX27% → 16%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −15
• ARKW 38-35 at ARK37% → 87%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• UGAL 21-41 vs UGA24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• MIZL 27-49 at MIZ33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +1
• MISSL 19-38 vs MISS33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +4
• WAKEL 29-43 vs WAKE61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3

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.