SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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−0.032nd
  Defense+0.295th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%4th
  Defense49.2%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.089th
  Defense+1.1472nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense+0.2016th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.061st
  Defense+0.433rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.9%11th
  Defense52.8%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.9%2nd
  Defense39.8%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5517th
  Defense3.464th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%33rd
  Defense13.0%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense1.7%31st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 SMU 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. L
   BAY
2. L
   UNT
3. L
   TA&M
4. L
   TCU
5. L
   ECU
6. L
   CIN
7. L
   MEM
8. L
   TLSA
9. L
   USF
10. L
    UCF
11. L
    HOU
12. W
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2014

1. Matt DavisQB173 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 123rd of 199 QBs
   0.76WAR0.45 to 1.10
2. Garrett KrstichQB63 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 157th of 199 QBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.33
3. Prescott LineRB53 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 196th of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
4. Jackson KoonceP32 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 63rd of 94 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12
5. Darius JosephWR46 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 338th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11
6. K.C. NlemchiRB11 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 299th of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Jeremiah GainesTE4 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 20th of 212 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 SMU'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 SMU's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 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. at CONNQ3 11:20 4th & 16 at CONN 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. vs CINQ3 14:52 4th & 4 at CIN 44, down 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at TLSAQ4 4:11 4th & 9 at TLSA 15, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs USFQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at SMU 25, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at UNTQ1 3:16 4th & 1 at SMU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ECUQ4 4:31 4th & 9 at ECU 30, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs HOUQ1 3:48 4th & 2 at SMU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MEMQ1 1:39 4th & 5 at MEM 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

79th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up SMU's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   BAY
2. L

   UNT
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   TCU
5. L

   ECU
6. L

   CIN
7. L

   MEM
8. L

   TLSA
9. L

   USF
10. L

    UCF
11. L

    HOU
12. W

    CONN

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at SMU'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−1.06
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.74

Game by game

• BAYL 0-45 at BAY2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• UNTL 6-43 at UNT39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39
• TA&ML 6-58 vs TA&M3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• TCUL 0-56 vs TCU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• ECUL 24-45 at ECU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• CINL 3-41 vs CIN15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• MEML 10-48 vs MEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• TLSAL 28-38 at TLSA24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• USFL 13-14 vs USF16% → 12%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• UCFL 7-53 at UCF4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• HOUL 9-35 vs HOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• CONNW 27-20 at CONN20% → 91%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +51, Possession & field position +2

Points of win probability, from SMU's side.

Closest call

HOU 16-38 SMU (2016) - SMU dropped to a 6.8% win probability before pulling it out.