Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2693rd
  Defense+0.0856th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%89th
  Defense40.0%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2971st
  Defense+1.2926th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1264th
  Defense+0.1612th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4196th
  Defense+0.0484th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%80th
  Defense44.8%70th
• 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%95th
  Defense30.3%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7927th
  Defense3.1123rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%22nd
  Defense17.9%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%75th
  Defense16.7%66th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   GAST
2. W
   UK
3. W
   ARK
4. W
   TULN
5. W
   LSU
6. W
   WSU
7. L
   UGA
8. W
   OU
9. W
   SC
10. W
    CIT
11. W
    FLA
12. W
    MSST
13. W
    TULN
14. W
    UGA
15. L
    MIA

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

Players, 2025

1. Trinidad ChamblissQB489 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 3rd of 231 QBs
   2.49WAR1.68 to 3.29
2. Kewan LacyRB288 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 1st of 365 RBs
   0.53WAR0.38 to 0.71
3. Harrison Wallace IIIWR72 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 23rd of 451 WRs
   0.31WAR0.15 to 0.47
4. Lucas CarneiroPK29 plays · +0.462 pts/play · 1st of 112 kickers
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.31
5. De'Zhaun StriblingWR57 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 63rd of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.32
6. Dae'Quan WrightTE51 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 10th of 213 TEs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.27
7. Cayden LeeWR54 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 121st of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.24
8. Deuce AlexanderWR61 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 134th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81381321st of 134Roster talent: 813, 21st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23623620th of 134Recruiting: 236, 20th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%104th of 132Returning production: 18%, 104th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.0+24.07th of 134SP+ rating: +24.0, 7th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 SCQ3 2:06 4th & 3 at MISS 30, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at MSSTQ2 3:07 4th & 8 at MSST 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at UGAQ1 2:13 4th & 5 at UGA 39, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs LSUQ1 1:40 4th & 4 at LSU 7, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs TULNQ2 12:48 4th & 8 at TULN 37, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs WSUQ4 12:14 4th & 6 at MISS 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs WSUQ2 6:19 4th & 4 at WSU 23, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs TULNQ2 3:38 4th & 4 at TULN 25, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

5th of 136 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

   GAST
2. W

   UK
3. W

   ARK
4. W

   TULN
5. W

   LSU
6. W

   WSU
7. L

   UGA
8. W

   OU
9. W

   SC
10. W

    CIT
11. W

    FLA
12. W

    MSST
13. W

    TULN
14. W

    UGA
15. L

    MIA

What moved it, 2025

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+2.83
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.28

Game by game

• GASTW 63-7 vs GAST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UKW 30-23 at UK73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• ARKW 41-35 vs ARK59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• TULNW 45-10 vs TULN83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21
• LSUW 24-19 vs LSU51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• WSUW 24-21 vs WSU98% → 78%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −20: Scoreboard +5
• UGAL 35-43 at UGA26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• OUW 34-26 at OU30% → 95%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• SCW 30-14 vs SC78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• CITW 49-0 vs CIT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• FLAW 34-24 vs FLA72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• MSSTW 38-19 at MSST67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts −4
• TULNW 41-10 vs TULN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• UGAW 39-34 at UGA29% → 86%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• MIAL 27-31 vs MIA42% → 23%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4

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.