SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2894th
  Defense+0.1736th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%83rd
  Defense39.4%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3786th
  Defense+1.444th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1046th
  Defense+0.0284th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4898th
  Defense+0.3515th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%70th
  Defense44.5%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.9%96th
  Defense30.1%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0749th
  Defense2.8076th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%29th
  Defense17.4%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%71st
  Defense16.4%44th

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, 2021

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2021

1. Tanner MordecaiQB450 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 11th of 219 QBs
   2.51WAR1.60 to 3.43
2. Tre SiggersRB131 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 90th of 387 RBs
   0.43WAR0.28 to 0.56
3. Ulysses Bentley IVRB98 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 186th of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.34
4. Danny GrayWR55 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 58th of 474 WRs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
5. Rashee RiceWR66 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 83rd of 474 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
6. Reggie Roberson Jr.WR46 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 88th of 474 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
7. Tyler LavineRB46 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 250th of 387 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
8. Grant CalcaterraTE44 plays · −0.018 pts/play · 226th of 234 TEs
   −0.01WAR−0.07 to 0.05

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57657663rd of 130Roster talent: 576, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416472nd of 130Recruiting: 164, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%112th of 128Returning production: 46%, 112th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.9+8.944th of 130SP+ rating: +8.9, 44th 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, 2021

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 0.09 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 MEMQ3 13:17 4th & 1 at SMU 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at NAVYQ4 3:37 4th & 6 at NAVY 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs TLSAQ4 11:00 4th & 7 at TLSA 21, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. at LTQ3 2:37 4th & 3 at SMU 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs UCFQ3 9:46 4th & 3 at UCF 48, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs UNTQ2 7:46 4th & 4 at midfield, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs TLSAQ2 5:07 4th & 7 at TLSA 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TLSAQ4 3:24 4th & 7 at SMU 34, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

67th 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

   ACU
2. W

   UNT
3. W

   LT
4. W

   TCU
5. W

   USF
6. W

   NAVY
7. W

   TULN
8. L

   HOU
9. L

   MEM
10. W

    UCF
11. L

    CIN
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2021

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+0.68
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• ACUW 56-9 vs ACU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UNTW 35-12 vs UNT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• LTW 39-37 at LT79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• TCUW 42-34 at TCU23% → 97%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• USFW 41-17 vs USF90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• NAVYW 31-24 at NAVY84% → 93%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +1
• TULNW 55-26 vs TULN81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• HOUL 37-44 at HOU53% → 13%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position +4
• MEML 25-28 at MEM60% → 16%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• UCFW 55-28 vs UCF68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31
• CINL 14-48 at CIN23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• TLSAL 31-34 vs TLSA69% → 7%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Clock −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.