SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1980th
  Defense+0.1722nd
• 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.
  Offense45.3%71st
  Defense46.4%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3492nd
  Defense+1.2918th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1581st
  Defense+0.1226th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2367th
  Defense+0.2521st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%58th
  Defense49.7%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.0%88th
  Defense38.8%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9967th
  Defense2.9539th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%61st
  Defense18.7%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%59th
  Defense17.1%58th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   SFA
2. W
   UNT
3. L
   TCU
4. W
   ARST
5. W
   CONN
6. L
   HOU
7. W
   CIN
8. W
   TLSA
9. L
   UCF
10. L
    NAVY
11. L
    MEM
12. W
    TULN
13. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2017

1. Ben HicksQB440 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 24th of 226 QBs
   1.81WAR0.93 to 2.68
2. Xavier JonesRB182 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 30th of 352 RBs
   0.49WAR0.34 to 0.62
3. Trey QuinnWR135 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 5th of 426 WRs
   0.35WAR0.19 to 0.48
4. Courtland SuttonWR110 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 9th of 426 WRs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.41
5. Ke'Mon FreemanRB102 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 120th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.34
6. Braeden WestRB71 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 216th of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
7. James ProcheWR48 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
8. Josh WilliamsPK18 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 66th of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49349373rd of 130Roster talent: 493, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14114177th of 130Recruiting: 141, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%13th of 128Returning production: 85%, 13th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.9−2.982nd of 128SP+ rating: −2.9, 82nd of 128 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 TLSAQ4 4:13 4th & 1 at SMU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. at CINQ4 0:59 4th & 1 at SMU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs UCFQ2 8:57 4th & 1 at SMU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at MEMQ2 12:28 4th & 1 at SMU 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs TLSAQ1 1:16 4th & 1 at SMU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs CONNQ3 9:21 4th & 5 at CONN 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UCFQ2 3:46 4th & 3 at SMU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs ARSTQ1 8:46 4th & 2 at ARST 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

81st of 130 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. W

   SFA
2. W

   UNT
3. L

   TCU
4. W

   ARST
5. W

   CONN
6. L

   HOU
7. W

   CIN
8. W

   TLSA
9. L

   UCF
10. L

    NAVY
11. L

    MEM
12. W

    TULN
13. L

    LT

What moved it, 2017

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−0.58
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• SFAW 58-14 vs SFA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UNTW 54-32 vs UNT84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• TCUL 36-56 at TCU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• ARSTW 44-21 vs ARST59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• CONNW 49-28 vs CONN88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• HOUL 22-35 at HOU27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• CINW 31-28 at CIN66% → 62%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −4: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +20
• TLSAW 38-34 vs TLSA83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 24-31 vs UCF18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• NAVYL 40-43 at NAVY53% → 6%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +1
• MEML 45-66 at MEM22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26
• TULNW 41-38 vs TULN75% → 78%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position −3
• LTL 10-51 vs LT68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −65

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.