Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2690th
  Defense+0.0859th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%81st
  Defense37.0%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3067th
  Defense+1.2935th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1573rd
  Defense+0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4289th
  Defense+0.1960th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%75th
  Defense43.5%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%86th
  Defense25.1%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0238th
  Defense2.7688th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%8th
  Defense22.0%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%80th
  Defense20.1%91st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SDAK
2. W
   MTSU
3. W
   KSU
4. W
   MEM
5. W
   VAN
6. L
   LSU
7. W
   UK
8. W
   SC
9. L
   UGA
10. W
    TENN
11. W
    FLA
12. W
    ARK
13. W
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2023

1. Brady CookQB430 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 15th of 250 QBs
   2.05WAR1.32 to 2.84
2. Cody SchraderRB252 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 4th of 383 RBs
   0.64WAR0.45 to 0.84
3. Theo Wease Jr.WR53 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 49th of 457 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.36
4. Harrison MevisPK23 plays · +0.359 pts/play · 9th of 113 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Brett NorfleetTE14 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 107th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
6. Nathaniel PeatRB49 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 287th of 383 RBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
7. Mookie CooperWR39 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 275th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.12
8. Luther Burden IIIWR84 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 300th of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.13 to 0.23

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75575524th of 130Roster talent: 755, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021030th of 130Recruiting: 210, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%35th of 128Returning production: 65%, 35th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.3+19.310th of 130SP+ rating: +19.3, 10th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 MTSUQ4 10:27 4th & 1 at MTSU 44, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at OSUQ2 4:30 4th & 2 at OSU 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs FLAQ4 0:38 4th & 17 at MIZ 33, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
4. at VANQ4 7:03 4th & 2 at MIZ 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at VANQ3 7:54 4th & 3 at VAN 44, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs SCQ2 1:50 4th & 3 at SC 3, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UKQ3 7:10 4th & 4 at UK 29, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UGAQ4 3:57 4th & 14 at MIZ 36, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

5th of 133 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

   SDAK
2. W

   MTSU
3. W

   KSU
4. W

   MEM
5. W

   VAN
6. L

   LSU
7. W

   UK
8. W

   SC
9. L

   UGA
10. W

    TENN
11. W

    FLA
12. W

    ARK
13. W

    OSU

What moved it, 2023

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+2.96
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• SDAKW 35-10 vs SDAK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• MTSUW 23-19 vs MTSU94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 30-27 vs KSU45% → 96%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• MEMW 34-27 vs MEM68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• VANW 38-21 at VAN84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• LSUL 39-49 vs LSU31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• UKW 38-21 at UK48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• SCW 34-12 vs SC69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 21-30 at UGA16% → 5%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts +1
• TENNW 36-7 vs TENN45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −2
• FLAW 33-31 vs FLA79% → 87%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +2
• ARKW 48-14 at ARK72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• OSUW 14-3 at OSU34% → 98%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3

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.