Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1247th
  Defense+0.1633rd
• 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.
  Offense42.0%33rd
  Defense44.8%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3088th
  Defense+1.2244th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0854th
  Defense+0.0843rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2154th
  Defense+0.2430th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%36th
  Defense48.8%38th
• 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%34th
  Defense36.5%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7226th
  Defense3.1121st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%33rd
  Defense15.8%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.0%24th
  Defense20.8%60th

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, 2019

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
   MEM
2. W
   ARK
3. W
   SELA
4. L
   CAL
5. L
   ALA
6. W
   VAN
7. L
   MIZ
8. L
   TA&M
9. L
   AUB
10. W
    NMSU
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    MSST

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

Players, 2019

1. John Rhys PlumleeQB207 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 55th of 228 QBs
   1.28WAR0.84 to 1.81
2. Matt CorralQB174 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 112th of 228 QBs
   0.60WAR0.30 to 0.90
3. Jerrion EalyRB89 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 144th of 349 RBs
   0.30WAR0.24 to 0.37
4. Scottie PhillipsRB86 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 155th of 349 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.34
5. Elijah MooreWR76 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 243rd of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17
6. Luke LoganPK12 plays · +0.308 pts/play · 97th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Mac BrownP44 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 53rd of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
8. Octavious CooleyTE16 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 46th of 207 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71871825th of 130Roster talent: 718, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23523520th of 130Recruiting: 235, 20th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%119th of 130Returning production: 28%, 119th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.9+2.952nd of 130SP+ rating: +2.9, 52nd of 130 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, 2019

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 0.07 of the 0.13 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&MQ4 8:50 4th & 2 at MISS 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at MSSTQ4 9:45 4th & 3 at MISS 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs CALQ3 11:25 4th & 1 at MISS 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs LSUQ4 5:35 4th & 18 at LSU 35, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs VANQ3 2:24 4th & 1 at MISS 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at AUBQ4 5:56 4th & 2 at AUB 5, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at MSSTQ4 14:49 4th & 5 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs TA&MQ4 1:24 4th & 15 at MISS 31, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

108th 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. L

   MEM
2. W

   ARK
3. W

   SELA
4. L

   CAL
5. L

   ALA
6. W

   VAN
7. L

   MIZ
8. L

   TA&M
9. L

   AUB
10. W

    NMSU
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2019

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−1.21
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• MEML 10-15 at MEM39% → 5%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −4
• ARKW 31-17 vs ARK61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• SELAW 40-29 vs SELA98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +7
• CALL 20-28 vs CAL58% → 9%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −1
• ALAL 31-59 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• VANW 31-6 vs VAN69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 27-38 at MIZ20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• TA&ML 17-24 vs TA&M28% → 6%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• AUBL 14-20 at AUB11% → 19%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position +2
• NMSUW 41-3 vs NMSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• LSUL 37-58 vs LSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• MSSTL 20-21 at MSST50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −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.