Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1869th
  Defense+0.1049th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%85th
  Defense43.8%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2552nd
  Defense+1.1582nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense+0.0562nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2453rd
  Defense+0.1763rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.3%82nd
  Defense49.6%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%85th
  Defense30.1%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0950th
  Defense3.2228th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%8th
  Defense15.3%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%55th
  Defense15.5%40th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   TROY
2. W
   CARK
3. W
   GT
4. W
   TLSA
5. W
   UK
6. W
   VAN
7. W
   AUB
8. L
   LSU
9. W
   TA&M
10. L
    ALA
11. L
    ARK
12. L
    MSST
13. L
    TTU

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

Players, 2022

1. Jaxson DartQB382 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 29th of 234 QBs
   1.87WAR1.24 to 2.62
2. Quinshon JudkinsRB237 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 4th of 384 RBs
   0.77WAR0.58 to 0.96
3. Zach EvansRB119 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 44th of 384 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.55
4. Malik HeathWR52 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 47th of 455 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
5. Jonathan MingoWR49 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 138th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Jordan WatkinsWR39 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 212th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Jonathan CruzPK16 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 33rd of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Michael TriggTE11 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 135th of 214 TEs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75775723rd of 129Roster talent: 757, 23rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22522520th of 129Recruiting: 225, 20th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%128th of 128Returning production: 3%, 128th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.2+16.214th of 129SP+ rating: +16.2, 14th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.04 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 MSSTQ3 7:37 4th & 1 at MISS 13, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs MSSTQ2 7:23 4th & 1 at MISS 21, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at LSUQ2 11:22 4th & 1 at MISS 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs AUBQ4 12:28 4th & 3 at AUB 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs ALAQ2 12:07 4th & 4 at ALA 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TTUQ2 6:24 4th & 6 at MISS 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at LSUQ4 7:36 4th & 8 at MISS 43, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at TA&MQ2 8:10 4th & 4 at MISS 16, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

84th of 131 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

   TROY
2. W

   CARK
3. W

   GT
4. W

   TLSA
5. W

   UK
6. W

   VAN
7. W

   AUB
8. L

   LSU
9. W

   TA&M
10. L

    ALA
11. L

    ARK
12. L

    MSST
13. L

    TTU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.38
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.19

Game by game

• TROYW 28-10 vs TROY92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• CARKW 59-3 vs CARK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• GTW 42-0 at GT85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• TLSAW 35-27 vs TLSA91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• UKW 22-19 vs UK60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• VANW 52-28 at VAN83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• AUBW 48-34 vs AUB82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 20-45 at LSU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• TA&MW 31-28 at TA&M48% → 95%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• ALAL 24-30 vs ALA16% → 6%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• ARKL 27-42 at ARK45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• MSSTL 22-24 vs MSST53% → 8%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• TTUL 25-42 vs TTU56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −57, 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.