Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1753rd
  Defense+0.2613th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%55th
  Defense44.4%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2747th
  Defense+1.3616th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1766th
  Defense+0.2119th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2041st
  Defense+0.3812th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%69th
  Defense49.2%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%32nd
  Defense33.2%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1052nd
  Defense3.0941st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%31st
  Defense18.4%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%82nd
  Defense15.9%33rd

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, 2021

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. W
   CMU
2. L
   UK
3. W
   SEMO
4. L
   BC
5. L
   TENN
6. W
   UNT
7. L
   TA&M
8. W
   VAN
9. L
   UGA
10. W
    SC
11. W
    FLA
12. L
    ARK
13. L
    ARMY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2021

1. Connor BazelakQB314 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 61st of 219 QBs
   1.43WAR0.87 to 2.03
2. Tyler BadieRB255 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 12th of 387 RBs
   0.90WAR0.68 to 1.09
3. Brady CookQB45 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 170th of 219 QBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
4. Harrison MevisPK19 plays · +0.378 pts/play · 11th of 128 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Tauskie DoveWR34 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
6. Grant McKinnissP35 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 39th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Keke ChismWR32 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 256th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Barrett BanisterWR26 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 322nd of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64864845th of 130Roster talent: 648, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819843rd of 130Recruiting: 198, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%65th of 128Returning production: 74%, 65th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.1+3.169th of 130SP+ rating: +3.1, 69th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.09 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 SCQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at SC 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at UKQ4 8:23 4th & 4 at MIZ 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at ARMYQ2 0:03 4th & 3 at ARMY 21, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at ARMYQ2 5:59 4th & 3 at ARMY 8, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs SCQ3 4:58 4th & 6 at SC 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs SCQ3 13:00 4th & 5 at SC 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs CMUQ2 0:02 4th & 8 at CMU 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at UKQ2 8:09 4th & 5 at midfield, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

76th 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. W

   CMU
2. L

   UK
3. W

   SEMO
4. L

   BC
5. L

   TENN
6. W

   UNT
7. L

   TA&M
8. W

   VAN
9. L

   UGA
10. W

    SC
11. W

    FLA
12. L

    ARK
13. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2021

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−0.62
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• CMUW 34-24 vs CMU83% → 94%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• UKL 28-35 at UK35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• SEMOW 59-28 vs SEMO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• BCL 34-41 at BC45% → 20%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +22
• TENNL 24-62 vs TENN61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −61
• UNTW 48-35 vs UNT90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15
• TA&ML 14-35 vs TA&M21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• VANW 37-28 at VAN84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• UGAL 6-43 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• SCW 31-28 vs SC49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• FLAW 24-23 vs FLA29% → 86%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −24
• ARKL 17-34 at ARK19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23
• ARMYL 22-24 at ARMY33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1

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.