Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2065th
  Defense−0.0690th
• 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.
  Offense42.7%45th
  Defense33.2%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2966th
  Defense+1.3815th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0738th
  Defense−0.1290th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4385th
  Defense+0.0576th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%40th
  Defense39.7%91st
• 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%51st
  Defense23.2%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9130th
  Defense2.2295th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%37th
  Defense25.9%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%33rd
  Defense21.7%98th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   UAPB
2. W
   KU
3. W
   TROY
4. L
   MSST
5. W
   FLA
6. W
   TA&M

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2026

1. Austin SimmonsQB156 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 42nd of 192 QBs
   0.37WAR0.12 to 0.60
2. Jamal RobertsRB133 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 5th of 320 RBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.35
3. Cayden LeeWR49 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 12th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
4. Donovan OlugbodeWR31 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Blake CraigPK13 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 4th of 82 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Brett NorfleetTE12 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 89th of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Caleb Goodie Sr.WR10 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80880819th of 138Roster talent: 808, 19th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23023022nd of 138Recruiting: 230, 22nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%62nd of 136Returning production: 42%, 62nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.0+18.013th of 138SP+ rating so far: +18.0, 13th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.05 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&MQ2 0:01 4th & 1 at TA&M 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at KUQ4 4:40 4th & 1 at MIZ 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at MSSTQ2 12:58 4th & 3 at MSST 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs TROYQ3 3:58 4th & 2 at MIZ 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at KUQ4 2:02 4th & 9 at KU 13, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TA&MQ2 10:11 4th & 4 at MIZ 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs FLAQ3 4:30 4th & 8 at FLA 34, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at MSSTQ2 1:24 4th & 5 at MIZ 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

9th of 138 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

   UAPB
2. W

   KU
3. W

   TROY
4. L

   MSST
5. W

   FLA
6. W

   TA&M

What moved it, 2026

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+1.21
• Clock+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• UAPBW 54-14 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• KUW 38-21 at KU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• TROYW 27-17 vs TROY95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• MSSTL 24-31 at MSST41% → 9%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• FLAW 45-17 vs FLA33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +58, Other −1
• TA&MW 27-6 vs TA&M57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +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.