Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2691st
  Defense+0.1048th
• 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.
  Offense45.1%73rd
  Defense41.7%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3995th
  Defense+1.2936th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1883rd
  Defense+0.0944th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4188th
  Defense+0.2057th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%78th
  Defense48.4%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%64th
  Defense27.9%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0135th
  Defense3.1441st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%12th
  Defense15.6%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%56th
  Defense17.5%66th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MER
2. W
   TULN
3. W
   GT
4. L
   ALA
5. W
   LSU
6. W
   ARK
7. W
   AUB
8. W
   VAN
9. W
   TA&M
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    ULM
12. W
    MSST
13. W
    PSU

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

Players, 2023

1. Jaxson DartQB358 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 30th of 250 QBs
   1.87WAR1.26 to 2.59
2. Quinshon JudkinsRB226 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 11th of 383 RBs
   0.58WAR0.37 to 0.77
3. Tre HarrisWR54 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 33rd of 457 WRs
   0.26WAR0.11 to 0.42
4. Caden PrieskornTE28 plays · +0.348 pts/play · 17th of 212 TEs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
5. Ulysses Bentley IVRB73 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 162nd of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Caden DavisPK15 plays · +0.348 pts/play · 39th of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Jordan WatkinsWR41 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 211th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.18
8. Fraser MasinP36 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 59th of 103 punters
   0.08WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75675623rd of 130Roster talent: 756, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22222220th of 130Recruiting: 222, 20th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%49th of 128Returning production: 62%, 49th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.4+18.412th of 130SP+ rating: +18.4, 12th 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, 2023

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 0.08 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 2:43 4th & 4 at ARK 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs GTQ4 7:53 4th & 3 at GT 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at TULNQ3 11:46 4th & 3 at MISS 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at AUBQ2 4:17 4th & 10 at AUB 10, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at ALAQ4 2:06 4th & 16 at ALA 18, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TA&MQ3 0:46 4th & 4 at TA&M 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at TULNQ4 1:53 4th & 6 at TULN 39, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at ALAQ4 3:50 4th & 23 at MISS 45, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

11th of 133 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

   MER
2. W

   TULN
3. W

   GT
4. L

   ALA
5. W

   LSU
6. W

   ARK
7. W

   AUB
8. W

   VAN
9. W

   TA&M
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    ULM
12. W

    MSST
13. W

    PSU

What moved it, 2023

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+2.02
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.25

Game by game

• MERW 73-7 vs MER98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TULNW 37-20 at TULN78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +28, Clock +3
• GTW 48-23 vs GT89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• ALAL 10-24 at ALA31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• LSUW 55-49 vs LSU37% → 81%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −3
• ARKW 27-20 vs ARK80% → 97%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• AUBW 28-21 at AUB66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• VANW 33-7 vs VAN94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• TA&MW 38-35 vs TA&M57% → 85%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• UGAL 17-52 at UGA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24
• ULMW 35-3 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTW 17-7 at MSST76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• PSUW 38-25 at PSU36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +59, 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.