Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2288th
  Defense0.0081st
• 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.
  Offense50.2%95th
  Defense39.2%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1839th
  Defense+1.1372nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0752nd
  Defense−0.0892nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3795th
  Defense+0.0864th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.4%92nd
  Defense44.0%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.8%97th
  Defense31.1%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8243rd
  Defense2.6273rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.9%16th
  Defense21.3%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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
   UTM
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   ALA
4. W
   VAN
5. L
   FLA
6. W
   NMSU
7. L
   MEM
8. W
   TA&M
9. W
   AUB
10. L
    ARK
11. W
    LSU
12. W
    MSST
13. W
    OKST

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

Players, 2015

1. Chad KellyQB422 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 12th of 205 QBs
   2.67WAR1.98 to 3.39
2. Laquon TreadwellWR86 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 25th of 411 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.43
3. Jaylen WaltonRB127 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 100th of 333 RBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.34
4. Cody CoreWR43 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 125th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Gary WunderlichPK22 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 30th of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
6. Damore'ea StringfellowWR44 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Quincy AdeboyejoWR33 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 234th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Jordan WilkinsRB46 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 217th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76476419th of 128Roster talent: 764, 19th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24324316th of 128Recruiting: 243, 16th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%72nd of 127Returning production: 55%, 72nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +27.0+27.03rd of 128SP+ rating: +27.0, 3rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.16 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 ARKQ3 0:26 4th & 1 at MISS 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs TA&MQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at TA&M 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. at MEMQ3 0:16 4th & 3 at MEM 7, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at FLAQ2 4:50 4th & 4 at midfield, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at AUBQ4 5:25 4th & 2 at MISS 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at AUBQ2 11:48 4th & 3 at AUB 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at AUBQ4 0:08 4th & 2 at AUB 32, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs VANQ2 5:19 4th & 1 at VAN 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

43rd of 128 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

   UTM
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   ALA
4. W

   VAN
5. L

   FLA
6. W

   NMSU
7. L

   MEM
8. W

   TA&M
9. W

   AUB
10. L

    ARK
11. W

    LSU
12. W

    MSST
13. W

    OKST

What moved it, 2015

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+1.40
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.79

Game by game

• UTMW 76-3 vs UTM77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• FRESW 73-21 vs FRES94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ALAW 43-37 at ALA29% → 97%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• VANW 27-16 vs VAN95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• FLAL 10-38 at FLA69% → 0%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −58
• NMSUW 52-3 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• MEML 24-37 at MEM78% → 1%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −2
• TA&MW 23-3 vs TA&M65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• AUBW 27-19 at AUB70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• ARKL 52-53 vs ARK75% → 9%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −18
• LSUW 38-17 vs LSU59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39
• MSSTW 38-27 at MSST54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• OKSTW 48-20 vs OKST70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31

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.