SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1870th
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%68th
  Defense43.1%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3179th
  Defense+1.3418th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1258th
  Defense+0.246th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3178th
  Defense+0.2630th
• 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%62nd
  Defense49.1%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%82nd
  Defense30.2%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1355th
  Defense3.2522nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%76th
  Defense12.9%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%73rd
  Defense13.0%10th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2022

1. Tanner MordecaiQB405 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 32nd of 234 QBs
   1.83WAR1.14 to 2.62
2. Tyler LavineRB128 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 50th of 384 RBs
   0.42WAR0.32 to 0.51
3. Rashee RiceWR89 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 4th of 455 WRs
   0.37WAR0.19 to 0.54
4. Jordan KerleyWR37 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 93rd of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Tre SiggersRB62 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 200th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Velton GardnerRB68 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 214th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
7. Camar WheatonRB53 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 244th of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
8. RJ MarylandTE26 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 42nd of 214 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59859863rd of 129Roster talent: 598, 63rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316371st of 129Recruiting: 163, 71st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%41st of 128Returning production: 69%, 41st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.7+4.756th of 129SP+ rating: +4.7, 56th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.10 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 MDQ4 7:30 4th & 7 at MD 9, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
2. vs CINQ4 5:09 4th & 14 at CIN 16, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at MDQ4 2:31 4th & 7 at MD 9, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. at TLSAQ4 2:52 4th & 1 at SMU 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs MEMQ2 9:09 4th & 2 at SMU 9, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TCUQ3 6:49 4th & 10 at TCU 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs CINQ1 6:11 4th & 1 at SMU 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at UCFQ2 10:13 4th & 3 at SMU 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

96th of 131 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

   UNT
2. W

   LAM
3. L

   MD
4. L

   TCU
5. L

   UCF
6. W

   NAVY
7. L

   CIN
8. W

   TLSA
9. W

   HOU
10. W

    USF
11. L

    TULN
12. W

    MEM
13. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.35
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.28

Game by game

• UNTW 48-10 at UNT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +31
• LAMW 45-16 vs LAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MDL 27-34 at MD40% → 9%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• TCUL 34-42 vs TCU40% → 3%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• UCFL 19-41 at UCF40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• NAVYW 40-34 vs NAVY86% → 96%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19
• CINL 27-29 vs CIN44% → 6%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• TLSAW 45-34 at TLSA55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• HOUW 77-63 vs HOU56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42
• USFW 41-23 at USF88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• TULNL 24-59 at TULN37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +1
• MEMW 34-31 vs MEM60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position −1
• BYUL 23-24 at BYU61% → 7%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −35, 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.