SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2078th
  Defense+0.1829th
• 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
  Defense43.0%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3580th
  Defense+1.3912th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0853rd
  Defense+0.1140th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3175th
  Defense+0.2628th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%66th
  Defense46.5%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%84th
  Defense36.2%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0367th
  Defense2.9052nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%56th
  Defense19.9%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%77th
  Defense18.0%68th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   TXST
2. W
   UNT
3. W
   SFA
4. W
   MEM
5. W
   TULN
6. L
   CIN
7. W
   NAVY
8. W
   TEM
9. L
   TLSA
10. L
    ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2020

1. Shane BuecheleQB351 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 14th of 212 QBs
   1.23WAR0.68 to 1.85
2. Ulysses Bentley IVRB162 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 27th of 338 RBs
   0.50WAR0.39 to 0.60
3. Tyler LavineRB59 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 170th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.23
4. Rashee RiceWR64 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 71st of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
5. TJ McDanielRB38 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 239th of 338 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
6. Tyler PageWR48 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 114th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Danny GrayWR45 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 119th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Kylen GransonTE44 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 4th of 191 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60560555th of 127Roster talent: 605, 55th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15415477th of 127Recruiting: 154, 77th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%55th of 127Returning production: 67%, 55th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.2+9.231st of 127SP+ rating: +9.2, 31st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 ECUQ2 11:01 4th & 1 at SMU 17, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at TLSAQ4 6:22 4th & 11 at TLSA 33, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. vs CINQ4 4:55 4th & 24 at CIN 25, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
4. vs CINQ4 11:57 4th & 2 at CIN 5, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at TLSAQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at SMU 25, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs CINQ4 10:29 4th & 5 at CIN 12, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UNTQ2 3:02 4th & 4 at UNT 4, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs NAVYQ4 0:24 4th & 7 at NAVY 32, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

84th of 127 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

   TXST
2. W

   UNT
3. W

   SFA
4. W

   MEM
5. W

   TULN
6. L

   CIN
7. W

   NAVY
8. W

   TEM
9. L

   TLSA
10. L

    ECU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.16
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• TXSTW 31-24 at TXST93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• UNTW 65-35 at UNT83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• SFAW 50-7 vs SFA99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MEMW 30-27 vs MEM55% → 95%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +36
• TULNW 37-34 at TULN70% → 74%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +34, Clock −19
• CINL 13-42 vs CIN51% → 0%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −53, Possession & field position −1
• NAVYW 51-37 vs NAVY83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• TEMW 47-23 at TEM86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• TLSAL 24-28 at TLSA53% → 4%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• ECUL 38-52 at ECU74% → 1%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −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.