Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2790th
  Defense+0.288th
• 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.
  Offense47.9%85th
  Defense50.6%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4092nd
  Defense+1.1975th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2090th
  Defense+0.266th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3587th
  Defense+0.3120th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%71st
  Defense55.0%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.7%95th
  Defense38.9%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9253rd
  Defense3.2714th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%60th
  Defense16.1%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%77th
  Defense13.4%16th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   FLA
2. W
   UK
3. L
   ALA
4. L
   ARK
5. L
   AUB
6. W
   VAN
7. W
   SC
8. W
   MSST
9. L
   LSU
10. W
    IU

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

Players, 2020

1. Matt CorralQB365 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 4th of 212 QBs
   1.53WAR0.81 to 2.16
2. Jerrion EalyRB143 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 18th of 338 RBs
   0.55WAR0.42 to 0.68
3. Snoop ConnerRB96 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 88th of 338 RBs
   0.32WAR0.22 to 0.40
4. Elijah MooreWR87 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 18th of 409 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.31
5. Henry Parrish Jr.RB55 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 178th of 338 RBs
   0.18WAR0.15 to 0.22
6. John Rhys PlumleeQB29 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 150th of 212 QBs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
7. Dontario DrummondWR33 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 176th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Braylon SandersWR17 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 240th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70270229th of 127Roster talent: 702, 29th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521527th of 127Recruiting: 215, 27th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%8th of 127Returning production: 90%, 8th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.8+4.847th of 127SP+ rating: +4.8, 47th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.12 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 AUBQ4 2:33 4th & 5 at midfield, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. at UKQ2 6:46 4th & 1 at MISS 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs FLAQ2 7:29 4th & 1 at MISS 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ALAQ4 1:29 4th & 8 at ALA 11, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at ARKQ3 15:00 4th & 8 at ARK 21, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs FLAQ2 1:54 4th & 2 at MISS 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs SCQ4 3:40 4th & 11 at SC 25, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at ARKQ3 8:42 4th & 6 at ARK 15, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

50th of 127 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

   FLA
2. W

   UK
3. L

   ALA
4. L

   ARK
5. L

   AUB
6. W

   VAN
7. W

   SC
8. W

   MSST
9. L

   LSU
10. W

    IU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.04
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• FLAL 35-51 vs FLA19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• UKW 42-41 at UK33% → 90%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +19
• ALAL 48-63 vs ALA7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13
• ARKL 21-33 at ARK49% → 3%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +1
• AUBL 28-35 vs AUB40% → 18%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +2
• VANW 54-21 at VAN90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• SCW 59-42 vs SC82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 31-24 vs MSST76% → 89%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −1
• LSUL 48-53 at LSU56% → 6%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +1
• IUW 26-20 at IU34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3

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.