Missouri

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+0.1462nd
  Defense−0.0187th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%70th
  Defense34.6%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2240th
  Defense+1.2550th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2087th
  Defense0.0076th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1127th
  Defense+0.0487th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%70th
  Defense38.3%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.
  Offense31.0%56th
  Defense27.5%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1273rd
  Defense2.6484th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%67th
  Defense21.0%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%83rd
  Defense19.8%95th

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 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
   CARK
2. W
   KU
3. W
   UL
4. W
   SC
5. W
   MASS
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   AUB
8. L
   VAN
9. L
   TA&M
10. W
    MSST
11. L
    OU
12. W
    ARK
13. L
    UVA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2025

1. Beau PribulaQB250 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 109th of 231 QBs
   0.71WAR0.28 to 1.20
2. Ahmad HardyRB186 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 14th of 365 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.54
3. Jamal RobertsRB112 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 88th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
4. Matt ZollersQB92 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 182nd of 231 QBs
   0.14WAR−0.02 to 0.29
5. Kevin Coleman Jr.WR61 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 155th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.22
6. Josh ManningWR40 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
7. Donovan OlugbodeWR41 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 303rd of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12
8. Connor WeselmanP39 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 40th of 100 punters
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80580522nd of 134Roster talent: 805, 22nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23323321st of 134Recruiting: 233, 21st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%96th of 132Returning production: 20%, 96th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.4+14.421st of 134SP+ rating: +14.4, 21st 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'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 0.07 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 TA&MQ3 12:57 4th & 1 at MIZ 16, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs UVAQ2 1:50 4th & 1 at MIZ 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs UVAQ4 14:53 4th & 2 at MIZ 35, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at OUQ3 9:18 4th & 3 at midfield, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs ALAQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at ALA 17, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs KUQ2 3:40 4th & 10 at KU 31, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at VANQ2 0:22 4th & 14 at VAN 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OUQ2 0:17 4th & 3 at OU 3, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

74th of 136 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

   CARK
2. W

   KU
3. W

   UL
4. W

   SC
5. W

   MASS
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   AUB
8. L

   VAN
9. L

   TA&M
10. W

    MSST
11. L

    OU
12. W

    ARK
13. L

    UVA

What moved it, 2025

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−0.03
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.07
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• CARKW 61-6 vs CARK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• KUW 42-31 vs KU68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• ULW 52-10 vs UL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• SCW 29-20 vs SC74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 42-6 vs MASS100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ALAL 24-27 vs ALA36% → 6%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• AUBW 23-17 at AUB53% → 79%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +41, Clock −2
• VANL 10-17 at VAN37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −2
• TA&ML 17-38 vs TA&M27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• MSSTW 49-27 vs MSST67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −1
• OUL 6-17 at OU33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 31-17 at ARK60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• UVAL 7-13 vs UVA63% → 4%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −57, 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.