SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1975th
  Defense+0.1057th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%47th
  Defense41.6%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3088th
  Defense+1.2914th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0751st
  Defense+0.0458th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3285th
  Defense+0.1556th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%54th
  Defense45.5%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%40th
  Defense34.4%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7834th
  Defense2.8060th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%53rd
  Defense19.4%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%75th
  Defense24.9%91st

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, 2019

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
   ARST
2. W
   UNT
3. W
   TXST
4. W
   TCU
5. W
   USF
6. W
   TLSA
7. W
   TEM
8. W
   HOU
9. L
   MEM
10. W
    ECU
11. L
    NAVY
12. W
    TULN
13. L
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2019

1. Shane BuecheleQB494 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 13th of 228 QBs
   2.07WAR1.13 to 3.04
2. Xavier JonesRB249 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 6th of 349 RBs
   0.91WAR0.67 to 1.13
3. James ProcheWR145 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 5th of 439 WRs
   0.40WAR0.20 to 0.60
4. Ke'Mon FreemanRB110 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 117th of 349 RBs
   0.35WAR0.26 to 0.46
5. Kylen GransonTE57 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 5th of 207 TEs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.25
6. Reggie Roberson Jr.WR58 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 159th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
7. Kevin RobledoPK12 plays · +0.376 pts/play · 88th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Myron GailliardWR29 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 294th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56556564th of 130Roster talent: 565, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15315377th of 130Recruiting: 153, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%28th of 130Returning production: 76%, 28th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.4+4.447th of 130SP+ rating: +4.4, 47th 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.19 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 ECUQ4 7:25 4th & 20 at ECU 31, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal6.1 pts
2. at HOUQ4 0:20 4th & 10 at HOU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal2.4 pts
3. at TCUQ4 12:54 4th & 1 at SMU 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.3 pts
4. at TCUQ3 10:17 4th & 1 at SMU 11, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.9 pts
5. at HOUQ3 2:46 4th & 1 at SMU 42, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
6. at MEMQ3 5:31 4th & 7 at MEM 39, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
7. at FAUQ2 9:55 4th & 1 at SMU 12, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
8. vs TEMQ2 0:29 4th & 6 at TEM 28, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

18th 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

   ARST
2. W

   UNT
3. W

   TXST
4. W

   TCU
5. W

   USF
6. W

   TLSA
7. W

   TEM
8. W

   HOU
9. L

   MEM
10. W

    ECU
11. L

    NAVY
12. W

    TULN
13. L

    FAU

What moved it, 2019

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+1.97
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.73

Game by game

• ARSTW 37-30 at ARST50% → 87%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• UNTW 49-27 vs UNT57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• TXSTW 47-17 vs TXST90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• TCUW 41-38 at TCU28% → 90%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• USFW 48-21 at USF70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• TLSAW 43-37 vs TLSA80% → 86%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −17
• TEMW 45-21 vs TEM76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• HOUW 34-31 at HOU78% → 83%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +29, Clock +3
• MEML 48-54 at MEM32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• ECUW 59-51 vs ECU91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• NAVYL 28-35 at NAVY45% → 2%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40
• TULNW 37-20 vs TULN60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• FAUL 28-52 at FAU69% → 0%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts −1

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.