Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0936th
  Defense−0.0189th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%36th
  Defense35.6%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.089th
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0439th
  Defense−0.0380th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1538th
  Defense+0.0191st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%42nd
  Defense39.2%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%35th
  Defense28.9%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8443rd
  Defense2.6577th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%53rd
  Defense20.7%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%61st
  Defense22.4%81st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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 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
   WYO
2. W
   WVU
3. W
   SEMO
4. W
   SC
5. W
   TROY
6. W
   MISS
7. L
   VAN
8. L
   UK
9. L
   UGA
10. L
    FLA
11. L
    TENN
12. W
    ARK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2019

1. Kelly BryantQB322 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 72nd of 228 QBs
   1.09WAR0.59 to 1.66
2. Larry Rountree IIIRB152 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 54th of 349 RBs
   0.52WAR0.39 to 0.64
3. Tyler BadieRB120 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 97th of 349 RBs
   0.40WAR0.30 to 0.49
4. Tucker McCannPK66 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 38th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Taylor PowellQB39 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 203rd of 228 QBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
6. Jonathan NanceWR33 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Johnathon JohnsonWR34 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 251st of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Albert OkwuegbunamTE29 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 70th of 207 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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'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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64364340th of 130Roster talent: 643, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419441st of 130Recruiting: 194, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%97th of 130Returning production: 43%, 97th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.8+7.839th of 130SP+ rating: +7.8, 39th 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, 2019

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 2:36 4th & 3 at ARK 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs TENNQ4 5:06 4th & 5 at MIZ 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at WYOQ3 4:21 4th & 5 at WYO 42, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at UGAQ2 12:34 4th & 1 at MIZ 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs SCQ2 0:31 4th & 3 at SC 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs SCQ4 7:36 4th & 2 at SC 38, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TROYQ2 14:53 4th & 1 at MIZ 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs SCQ2 13:22 4th & 3 at SC 29, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

124th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   WYO
2. W

   WVU
3. W

   SEMO
4. W

   SC
5. W

   TROY
6. W

   MISS
7. L

   VAN
8. L

   UK
9. L

   UGA
10. L

    FLA
11. L

    TENN
12. W

    ARK

What moved it, 2019

Every game starts at Missouri'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−1.23
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.05

Game by game

• WYOL 31-37 at WYO86% → 4%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• WVUW 38-7 vs WVU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• SEMOW 50-0 vs SEMO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• SCW 34-14 vs SC71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• TROYW 42-10 vs TROY94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MISSW 38-27 vs MISS80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• VANL 14-21 at VAN91% → 3%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• UKL 7-29 at UK73% → 0%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −54, Clock −1
• UGAL 0-27 at UGA9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −11
• FLAL 6-23 vs FLA26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• TENNL 20-24 vs TENN49% → 6%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• ARKW 24-14 at ARK83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Missouri's side.

Closest call

MIZ 21-20 SC (2014) - Missouri dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.