Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.3198th
  Defense−0.0697th
• 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%88th
  Defense34.7%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3894th
  Defense+1.2841st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1570th
  Defense−0.1299th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4798th
  Defense0.0090th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%84th
  Defense42.1%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.3%97th
  Defense22.5%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0553rd
  Defense2.4597th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%34th
  Defense21.6%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%66th
  Defense23.5%99th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   FUR
2. W
   MTSU
3. W
   WAKE
4. W
   GASO
5. L
   UK
6. W
   SC
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   OU
9. W
   ARK
10. W
    UGA
11. L
    FLA
12. W
    MSST
13. W
    DUKE

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

Players, 2024

1. Jaxson DartQB365 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 17th of 232 QBs
   2.19WAR1.50 to 2.83
2. Cayden LeeWR50 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 65th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.28
3. Ulysses Bentley IVRB69 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 183rd of 373 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
4. Henry Parrish Jr.RB93 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 201st of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
5. Caden PrieskornTE23 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 18th of 221 TEs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Tre HarrisWR40 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 110th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.23
7. Caden DavisPK17 plays · +0.374 pts/play · 16th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Jordan WatkinsWR53 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.01 to 0.25

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80280220th of 131Roster talent: 802, 20th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23123120th of 131Recruiting: 231, 20th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%14th of 130Returning production: 82%, 14th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +27.9+27.92nd of 131SP+ rating: +27.9, 2nd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 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 UKQ4 11:14 4th & 2 at MISS 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs UKQ4 4:48 4th & 2 at MISS 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs OUQ4 14:51 4th & 2 at OU 24, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at SCQ2 3:19 4th & 3 at SC 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at LSUQ2 14:55 4th & 4 at LSU 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs OUQ2 7:29 4th & 3 at OU 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 2:55 4th & 7 at UGA 36, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs UKQ3 0:10 4th & 7 at UK 48, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

100th of 134 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

   FUR
2. W

   MTSU
3. W

   WAKE
4. W

   GASO
5. L

   UK
6. W

   SC
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   OU
9. W

   ARK
10. W

    UGA
11. L

    FLA
12. W

    MSST
13. W

    DUKE

What moved it, 2024

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+0.20
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.13

Game by game

• FURW 76-0 vs FUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• MTSUW 52-3 vs MTSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WAKEW 40-6 at WAKE93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• GASOW 52-13 vs GASO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• UKL 17-20 vs UK88% → 8%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• SCW 27-3 at SC81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• LSUL 26-29 at LSU65% → 15%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +24
• OUW 26-14 vs OU91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• ARKW 63-31 at ARK75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• UGAW 28-10 vs UGA44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +50, Clock −3
• FLAL 17-24 at FLA81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• MSSTW 26-14 vs MSST96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9
• DUKEW 52-20 vs DUKE89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14

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.