SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0946th
  Defense+0.311st
• 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.
  Offense41.3%32nd
  Defense49.9%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2569th
  Defense+1.3410th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0650th
  Defense+0.291st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1446th
  Defense+0.403rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%21st
  Defense56.1%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%57th
  Defense34.3%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8650th
  Defense3.403rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%56th
  Defense13.9%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense1.5%19th

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, 2015

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. W
   UNT
3. L
   TCU
4. L
   JMU
5. L
   ECU
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   USF
8. L
   TLSA
9. L
   TEM
10. L
    NAVY
11. W
    TULN
12. L
    MEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2015

1. Matt DavisQB368 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 49th of 205 QBs
   1.67WAR1.05 to 2.34
2. Xavier JonesRB144 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 84th of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
3. Courtland SuttonWR57 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 57th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
4. Prescott LineRB49 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 197th of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Jackson KoonceP16 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 80th of 92 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
6. Jeremiah GainesTE16 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 10th of 189 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05
7. Braeden WestRB12 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 277th of 333 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Darius JosephWR7 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 394th of 411 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44744775th of 128Roster talent: 447, 75th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613679th of 128Recruiting: 136, 79th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%15th of 127Returning production: 88%, 15th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.5−17.5120th of 128SP+ rating: −17.5, 120th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.10 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 JMUQ3 4:04 4th & 3 at JMU 34, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs TLSAQ4 2:43 4th & 20 at TLSA 20, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. vs BAYQ3 10:41 4th & 2 at SMU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at TCUQ3 0:00 4th & 1 at TCU 5, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs BAYQ3 4:13 4th & 1 at SMU 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs TLSAQ4 2:43 4th & 10 at SMU 39, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs JMUQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at SMU 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MEMQ2 15:00 4th & 10 at MEM 14, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

114th 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. W

   UNT
3. L

   TCU
4. L

   JMU
5. L

   ECU
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   USF
8. L

   TLSA
9. L

   TEM
10. L

    NAVY
11. W

    TULN
12. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2015

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−1.79
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• BAYL 21-56 vs BAY11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• UNTW 31-13 vs UNT68% → 92%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• TCUL 37-56 at TCU1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• JMUL 45-48 vs JMU85% → 19%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −38, Clock −3
• ECUL 23-49 vs ECU41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• HOUL 28-49 at HOU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13
• USFL 14-38 at USF21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position +1
• TLSAL 31-40 vs TLSA45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• TEML 40-60 vs TEM24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• NAVYL 14-55 at NAVY11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• TULNW 49-21 vs TULN61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −1
• MEML 0-63 at MEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9

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.