Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1667th
  Defense+0.2115th
• 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.
  Offense45.7%70th
  Defense44.4%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1842nd
  Defense+1.3211th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0851st
  Defense+0.234th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2572nd
  Defense+0.2038th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%54th
  Defense47.3%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.6%91st
  Defense37.7%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9346th
  Defense3.0931st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%46th
  Defense17.6%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%47th
  Defense14.8%24th

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, 2016

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. L
   FSU
2. W
   WOF
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   UGA
5. W
   MEM
6. L
   ARK
7. L
   LSU
8. L
   AUB
9. W
   GASO
10. W
    TA&M
11. L
    VAN
12. L
    MSST

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

Players, 2016

1. Chad KellyQB339 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 19th of 218 QBs
   2.07WAR1.51 to 2.59
2. Shea PattersonQB149 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 126th of 218 QBs
   0.54WAR0.28 to 0.77
3. Akeem JuddRB164 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 50th of 347 RBs
   0.51WAR0.35 to 0.65
4. Damore'ea StringfellowWR65 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 104th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
5. Van JeffersonWR49 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
6. Gary WunderlichPK20 plays · +0.407 pts/play · 24th of 116 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Evan EngramTE80 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 2nd of 195 TEs
   0.11WAR−0.05 to 0.26
8. Eugene BrazleyRB56 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 239th of 347 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80880815th of 128Roster talent: 808, 15th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25625613th of 128Recruiting: 256, 13th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%39th of 128Returning production: 77%, 39th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.4+12.425th of 128SP+ rating: +12.4, 25th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.20 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 ALAQ3 1:47 4th & 1 at ALA 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. at LSUQ3 6:34 4th & 1 at MISS 35, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at ARKQ4 14:49 4th & 2 at ARK 16, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at LSUQ3 13:51 4th & 1 at MISS 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs ALAQ4 9:36 4th & 3 at MISS 18, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs ALAQ2 14:49 4th & 1 at MISS 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs ALAQ4 13:17 4th & 3 at ALA 21, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at VANQ4 8:24 4th & 11 at VAN 13, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

122nd 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. L

   FSU
2. W

   WOF
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   UGA
5. W

   MEM
6. L

   ARK
7. L

   LSU
8. L

   AUB
9. W

   GASO
10. W

    TA&M
11. L

    VAN
12. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2016

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−2.02
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• FSUL 34-45 at FSU36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −1
• WOFW 38-13 vs WOF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ALAL 43-48 vs ALA29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• UGAW 45-14 vs UGA66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −1
• MEMW 48-28 vs MEM88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• ARKL 30-34 at ARK73% → 4%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• LSUL 21-38 at LSU35% → 2%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• AUBL 29-40 vs AUB47% → 2%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• GASOW 37-27 vs GASO92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• TA&MW 29-28 at TA&M28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• VANL 17-38 at VAN79% → 1%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• MSSTL 20-55 vs MSST78% → 0%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −69, Clock −2

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.