Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1664th
  Defense+0.0186th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%59th
  Defense40.6%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1918th
  Defense+1.2167th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1157th
  Defense−0.0896th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2363rd
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%56th
  Defense47.3%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%62nd
  Defense26.7%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0450th
  Defense2.7578th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%85th
  Defense19.0%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.3%96th
  Defense18.3%73rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MUR
2. W
   BUF
3. W
   BC
4. W
   VAN
5. L
   TA&M
6. W
   MASS
7. W
   AUB
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   OU
10. L
    SC
11. W
    MSST
12. W
    ARK
13. W
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2024

1. Brady CookQB278 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 71st of 232 QBs
   1.30WAR0.86 to 1.74
2. Nate NoelRB134 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 80th of 373 RBs
   0.31WAR0.21 to 0.41
3. Marcus CarrollRB93 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 143rd of 373 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
4. Theo Wease Jr.WR47 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 50th of 452 WRs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.28
5. Blake CraigPK23 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 22nd of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. Marquis JohnsonWR16 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 162nd of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Luther Burden IIIWR50 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 202nd of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.18
8. Drew PyneQB64 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 216th of 232 QBs
   0.06WAR−0.05 to 0.17

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80780719th of 131Roster talent: 807, 19th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22522521st of 131Recruiting: 225, 21st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%7th of 130Returning production: 88%, 7th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.0+14.019th of 131SP+ rating: +14.0, 19th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.28 of the 0.30 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 VANQ4 0:53 4th & 1 at VAN 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−8.8 pts
2. vs IOWAQ4 1:54 4th & 1 at MIZ 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.6 pts
3. at SCQ4 12:49 4th & 1 at SC 7, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
4. vs VANQ4 10:48 4th & 2 at VAN 23, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. at SCQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at SC 49, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
6. vs AUBQ4 1:29 4th & 5 at AUB 41, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. vs VANQ2 6:48 4th & 2 at VAN 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at MSSTQ3 6:14 4th & 2 at MSST 18, up 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

29th of 134 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

   MUR
2. W

   BUF
3. W

   BC
4. W

   VAN
5. L

   TA&M
6. W

   MASS
7. W

   AUB
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   OU
10. L

    SC
11. W

    MSST
12. W

    ARK
13. W

    IOWA

What moved it, 2024

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+1.01
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• MURW 51-0 vs MUR100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BUFW 38-0 vs BUF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• BCW 27-21 vs BC87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18
• VANW 30-27 vs VAN92% → 85%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −10
• TA&ML 10-41 at TA&M46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 45-3 at MASS97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• AUBW 21-17 vs AUB59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 0-34 at ALA15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• OUW 30-23 vs OU45% → 93%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +3
• SCL 30-34 at SC31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• MSSTW 39-20 at MSST79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• ARKW 28-21 vs ARK65% → 89%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• IOWAW 27-24 vs IOWA59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +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.