Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2186th
  Defense+0.2016th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%85th
  Defense45.6%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2881st
  Defense+1.1857th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2089th
  Defense+0.209th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2474th
  Defense+0.2326th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%84th
  Defense49.0%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.0%65th
  Defense36.7%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1786th
  Defense3.2014th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%64th
  Defense16.7%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%37th
  Defense14.1%17th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   USA
2. W
   UTM
3. L
   CAL
4. L
   ALA
5. L
   AUB
6. W
   VAN
7. L
   LSU
8. L
   ARK
9. W
   UK
10. W
    UL
11. L
    TA&M
12. W
    MSST

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

Players, 2017

1. Shea PattersonQB175 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 109th of 226 QBs
   0.67WAR0.38 to 0.97
2. Jordan Ta'amuQB183 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 123rd of 226 QBs
   0.49WAR0.11 to 0.82
3. Jordan WilkinsRB134 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 71st of 352 RBs
   0.36WAR0.27 to 0.46
4. A.J. BrownWR63 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 30th of 426 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
5. Gary WunderlichPK16 plays · +0.593 pts/play · 9th of 110 kickers
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.21
6. D.K. MetcalfWR40 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Van JeffersonWR36 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 226th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
8. DaMarkus LodgeWR47 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 251st of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  79679617th of 130Roster talent: 796, 17th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24424417th of 130Recruiting: 244, 17th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%114th of 128Returning production: 30%, 114th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.6+11.626th of 128SP+ rating: +11.6, 26th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 ARKQ4 9:52 4th & 2 at ARK 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.5 pts
2. at UKQ4 14:16 4th & 4 at UK 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
3. vs LSUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at LSU 9, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
4. vs TA&MQ4 9:16 4th & 9 at TA&M 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
5. at CALQ4 0:36 4th & 13 at CAL 19, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts
6. at CALQ3 8:54 4th & 7 at CAL 41, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs LSUQ2 14:10 4th & 3 at LSU 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. at MSSTQ2 3:44 4th & 4 at MISS 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

63rd of 130 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

   USA
2. W

   UTM
3. L

   CAL
4. L

   ALA
5. L

   AUB
6. W

   VAN
7. L

   LSU
8. L

   ARK
9. W

   UK
10. W

    UL
11. L

    TA&M
12. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2017

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−0.16
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• USAW 47-27 vs USA92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• UTMW 45-23 vs UTM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• CALL 16-27 at CAL72% → 2%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• ALAL 3-66 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• AUBL 23-44 at AUB7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• VANW 57-35 vs VAN55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +42
• LSUL 24-40 vs LSU27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• ARKL 37-38 vs ARK55% → 9%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• UKW 37-34 at UK38% → 93%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• ULW 50-22 vs UL94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• TA&ML 24-31 vs TA&M40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MSSTW 31-28 at MSST15% → 95%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4

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.