Ole Miss

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+0.3088th
  Defense+0.2017th
• 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.
  Offense52.3%96th
  Defense46.7%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1623rd
  Defense+1.2059th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1354th
  Defense+0.1720th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4790th
  Defense+0.2729th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.0%96th
  Defense53.7%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.2%88th
  Defense30.7%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8928th
  Defense2.8554th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%40th
  Defense22.5%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%73rd
  Defense16.0%53rd

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 Ole Miss 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
   LOU
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   LSU
4. L
   FLA
5. W
   VAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ole Miss.

Players, 2026

1. Trinidad ChamblissQB161 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 8th of 192 QBs
   0.61WAR0.38 to 0.84
2. Deuce AlexanderWR30 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 25th of 364 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
3. Kewan LacyRB45 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 123rd of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
4. Lucas CarneiroPK7 plays · +0.367 pts/play · 10th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Caleb OdomTE21 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 25th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Horatio FieldsWR19 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Makhi FrazierRB22 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 229th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Johntay Cook IIWR9 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 262nd of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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 Ole Miss'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.
  88688614th of 138Roster talent: 886, 14th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23923920th of 138Recruiting: 239, 20th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%55th of 136Returning production: 50%, 55th 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.
  +15.9+15.916th of 138SP+ rating so far: +15.9, 16th 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 Ole Miss's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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. at FLAQ1 5:55 4th & 1 at MISS 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
2. at FLAQ2 14:30 4th & 3 at MISS 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
3. vs LOUQ2 14:51 4th & 4 at LOU 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at VANQ2 1:20 4th & 2 at MISS 29, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at VANQ3 2:10 4th & 1 at MISS 34, up 32Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at FLAQ2 1:11 4th & 4 at FLA 28, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at VANQ4 11:46 4th & 2 at VAN 24, up 32Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs LSUQ1 6:38 4th & 4 at LSU 20, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

25th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Ole Miss's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   LOU
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   LSU
4. L

   FLA
5. W

   VAN

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Ole Miss'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+0.66
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02

Game by game

• LOUW 41-38 vs LOU70% → 94%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −1
• CLTW 41-9 vs CLT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LSUW 32-24 vs LSU45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• FLAL 28-52 at FLA37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37
• VANW 52-17 at VAN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1

Points of win probability, from Ole Miss's side.

Closest call

MISS 29-28 TA&M (2016) - Ole Miss dropped to a 7.5% win probability before pulling it out.