Missouri State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0727th
  Defense+0.259th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%26th
  Defense49.2%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1931st
  Defense+1.1185th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0945th
  Defense+0.1328th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1023rd
  Defense+0.3712th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%51st
  Defense55.5%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.4%6th
  Defense34.4%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1860th
  Defense3.1923rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%76th
  Defense15.4%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%23rd
  Defense14.5%31st

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Missouri 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. L
   TA&M
2. W
   LIN
3. L
   MRSH
4. L
   SMU
5. L
   WKU
6. W
   KENN

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

Players, 2026

1. Skyler LocklearQB92 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 62nd of 192 QBs
   0.29WAR0.16 to 0.43
2. Ramone Green Jr.RB33 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 131st of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
3. Jmariyae RobinsonWR18 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
4. Henry Belin IVQB16 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 180th of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
5. Mekhi MillerWR15 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
6. Jeron AskrenTE10 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 51st of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Yousef ObeidPK5 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 51st of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Connor LairRB2 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 313th of 320 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 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 Missouri 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  550550119th of 138Roster talent: 550, 119th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  5151138th of 138Recruiting: 51, 138th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%87th of 136Returning production: 31%, 87th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.5−19.5129th of 138SP+ rating so far: −19.5, 129th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Missouri State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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 SMUQ4 4:13 4th & 21 at MOST 14, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
2. at SMUQ4 9:00 4th & 4 at MOST 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs MRSHQ1 5:45 4th & 2 at MRSH 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at SMUQ4 1:59 4th & 20 at MOST 33, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at WKUQ4 4:18 4th & 15 at MOST 20, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs MRSHQ1 12:41 4th & 3 at MRSH 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at SMUQ4 12:16 4th & 6 at SMU 15, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at WKUQ1 13:37 4th & 3 at MOST 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

79th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Missouri State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TA&M
2. W

   LIN
3. L

   MRSH
4. L

   SMU
5. L

   WKU
6. W

   KENN

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Missouri 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−0.76
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• TA&ML 0-50 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• LINW 48-14 vs LIN88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• MRSHL 24-30 vs MRSH32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• SMUL 24-34 at SMU3% → 3%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −8, Timeouts −1
• WKUL 13-34 at WKU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +1
• KENNW 24-21 vs KENN45% → 69%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +4, Possession & field position +3

Points of win probability, from Missouri State's side.

Closest call

MOST 22-20 MTSU (2025) - Missouri State dropped to a 4.4% win probability before pulling it out.