Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2273rd
  Defense+0.1257th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%74th
  Defense46.2%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3681st
  Defense+1.1493rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2693rd
  Defense+0.2512th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1937th
  Defense0.0095th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%74th
  Defense51.9%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%79th
  Defense32.0%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2469th
  Defense3.575th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%45th
  Defense13.4%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%67th
  Defense15.9%33rd

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, 2021

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
   LOU
2. W
   APSU
3. W
   TULN
4. L
   ALA
5. W
   ARK
6. W
   TENN
7. W
   LSU
8. L
   AUB
9. W
   LIB
10. W
    TA&M
11. W
    VAN
12. W
    MSST
13. L
    BAY

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

Players, 2021

1. Matt CorralQB377 plays · +0.407 pts/play · 5th of 219 QBs
   2.87WAR2.12 to 3.58
2. Jerrion EalyRB122 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 88th of 387 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.56
3. Snoop ConnerRB104 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 105th of 387 RBs
   0.38WAR0.26 to 0.49
4. Henry Parrish Jr.RB99 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 127th of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.25 to 0.43
5. Dontario DrummondWR62 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 63rd of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
6. Braylon SandersWR30 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Mac BrownP30 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 57th of 101 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.19
8. Jahcour PearsonWR28 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 276th of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73273227th of 130Roster talent: 732, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22222223rd of 130Recruiting: 222, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%50th of 128Returning production: 83%, 50th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.8+14.817th of 130SP+ rating: +14.8, 17th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 BAYQ4 4:52 4th & 10 at BAY 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. vs LSUQ3 6:37 4th & 2 at midfield, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at AUBQ3 1:08 4th & 7 at AUB 13, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs LIBQ2 7:28 4th & 8 at LIB 16, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs BAYQ4 5:26 4th & 4 at BAY 30, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TA&MQ1 2:42 4th & 2 at MISS 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs BAYQ4 13:09 4th & 4 at BAY 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs TA&MQ2 0:57 4th & 11 at TA&M 40, up 15Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

22nd 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

   LOU
2. W

   APSU
3. W

   TULN
4. L

   ALA
5. W

   ARK
6. W

   TENN
7. W

   LSU
8. L

   AUB
9. W

   LIB
10. W

    TA&M
11. W

    VAN
12. W

    MSST
13. L

    BAY

What moved it, 2021

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+1.39
• Possession & field position−0.12
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.09
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• LOUW 43-24 vs LOU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• APSUW 54-17 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TULNW 61-21 vs TULN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• ALAL 21-42 at ALA18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 52-51 vs ARK68% → 59%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −9: Possession & field position −7, Timeouts +2
• TENNW 31-26 at TENN58% → 91%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +8
• LSUW 31-17 vs LSU72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• AUBL 20-31 at AUB44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• LIBW 27-14 vs LIB72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• TA&MW 29-19 vs TA&M47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position +1
• VANW 31-17 vs VAN98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +6
• MSSTW 31-21 at MSST47% → 95%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +54, Possession & field position −4
• BAYL 7-21 vs BAY58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, 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.