Missouri 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+0.1564th
  Defense+0.1621st
• 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.
  Offense39.3%24th
  Defense42.7%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.5099th
  Defense+1.3123rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0128th
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3076th
  Defense+0.2528th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%21st
  Defense49.5%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%44th
  Defense27.1%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.494th
  Defense2.7666th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.0%1st
  Defense19.5%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.9%1st
  Defense15.0%39th

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 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
   USC
2. W
   MRSH
3. L
   SMU
4. W
   UTM
5. L
   WKU
6. W
   MTSU
7. W
   NMSU
8. W
   FIU
9. W
   LIB
10. W
    UTEP
11. L
    KENN
12. L
    LT
13. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2025

1. Jacob ClarkQB359 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 52nd of 231 QBs
   1.35WAR0.69 to 2.10
2. Shomari LawrenceRB186 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 50th of 365 RBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.40
3. Tristian GardnerWR33 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 106th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
4. Deuce BaileyQB67 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 178th of 231 QBs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
5. Jmariyae RobinsonWR51 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 134th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Ramone Green Jr.RB29 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 184th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
7. Dash LukeWR43 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 170th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.17
8. Yousef ObeidPK17 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 50th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  426426129th of 134Roster talent: 426, 129th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  1717134th of 134Recruiting: 17, 134th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.7−10.7106th of 134SP+ rating: −10.7, 106th 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 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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.18 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 KENNQ4 1:07 4th & 10 at KENN 34, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal4.0 pts
2. vs LTQ3 10:48 4th & 19 at MOST 38, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting3.9 pts
3. vs SMUQ2 7:36 4th & 1 at SMU 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
4. at LIBQ2 1:48 4th & 1 at MOST 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. vs WKUQ2 3:31 4th & 2 at WKU 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
6. vs WKUQ2 0:59 4th & 2 at WKU 2, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
7. vs FIUQ4 13:38 4th & 2 at MOST 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
8. at LIBQ4 5:24 4th & 7 at MOST 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

22nd of 136 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

   USC
2. W

   MRSH
3. L

   SMU
4. W

   UTM
5. L

   WKU
6. W

   MTSU
7. W

   NMSU
8. W

   FIU
9. W

   LIB
10. W

    UTEP
11. L

    KENN
12. L

    LT
13. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2025

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+0.07
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.60
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• USCL 13-73 at USC1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• MRSHW 21-20 at MRSH29% → 96%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• SMUL 10-28 vs SMU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −9
• UTMW 42-10 vs UTM85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• WKUL 22-27 vs WKU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• MTSUW 22-20 at MTSU52% → 27%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts +42
• NMSUW 24-17 at NMSU55% → 86%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +19
• FIUW 28-21 vs FIU53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• LIBW 21-17 at LIB27% → 90%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• UTEPW 38-24 vs UTEP62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• KENNL 34-41 at KENN35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• LTL 30-42 vs LT53% → 2%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ARSTL 28-34 vs ARST39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2

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.