SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0832nd
  Defense+0.1247th
• 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.
  Offense38.6%11th
  Defense43.5%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4099th
  Defense+1.2435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0410th
  Defense+0.0843rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1951st
  Defense+0.2035th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%13th
  Defense46.3%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%31st
  Defense37.6%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.457th
  Defense2.8161st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.8%1st
  Defense23.1%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%34th
  Defense16.6%59th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2018

1. Ben HicksQB323 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 63rd of 225 QBs
   1.30WAR0.73 to 1.87
2. Braeden WestRB127 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 99th of 351 RBs
   0.38WAR0.29 to 0.48
3. James ProcheWR97 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 5th of 434 WRs
   0.35WAR0.18 to 0.52
4. Ke'Mon FreemanRB73 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 188th of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.19 to 0.29
5. William BrownQB41 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 203rd of 225 QBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
6. Xavier JonesRB43 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 266th of 351 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Reggie Roberson Jr.WR83 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.19
8. Jamie SackvilleP51 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 58th of 91 punters
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48548573rd of 130Roster talent: 485, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714778th of 130Recruiting: 147, 78th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%66th of 129Returning production: 64%, 66th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.4−5.493rd of 130SP+ rating: −5.4, 93rd of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.27 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 NAVYQ4 6:19 4th & 2 at NAVY 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.0 pts
2. vs CINQ4 12:46 4th & 1 at CIN 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
3. vs CINQ4 9:05 4th & 2 at CIN 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
4. vs NAVYQ3 11:45 4th & 1 at SMU 15, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs MEMQ2 0:49 4th & 15 at MEM 37, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
6. vs MEMQ4 3:50 4th & 13 at SMU 25, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
7. at TULNQ4 5:38 4th & 14 at TULN 44, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. at TLSAQ4 12:14 4th & 9 at TLSA 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

42nd 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. L

   UNT
2. L

   TCU
3. L

   MICH
4. W

   NAVY
5. W

   HCU
6. L

   UCF
7. W

   TULN
8. L

   CIN
9. W

   HOU
10. W

    CONN
11. L

    MEM
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2018

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.25
• Timeouts−0.39
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• UNTL 23-46 at UNT41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• TCUL 12-42 vs TCU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• MICHL 20-45 at MICH1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• NAVYW 31-30 vs NAVY33% → 85%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −23
• HCUW 63-27 vs HCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• UCFL 20-48 at UCF5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• TULNW 27-23 at TULN29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• CINL 20-26 vs CIN25% → 22%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −16
• HOUW 45-31 vs HOU20% → 99%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• CONNW 62-50 at CONN88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• MEML 18-28 vs MEM33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• TLSAL 24-27 at TLSA56% → 12%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −3

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.