SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1771st
  Defense−0.0698th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%62nd
  Defense36.7%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3483rd
  Defense+1.2746th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0741st
  Defense−0.0897th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2879th
  Defense−0.0495th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%59th
  Defense42.4%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%75th
  Defense26.7%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9739th
  Defense2.7282nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%58th
  Defense20.9%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%60th
  Defense18.6%76th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   NEV
2. W
   HCU
3. L
   BYU
4. W
   TCU
5. W
   FSU
6. W
   LOU
7. W
   STAN
8. W
   DUKE
9. W
   PITT
10. W
    BC
11. W
    UVA
12. W
    CAL
13. L
    CLEM
14. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2024

1. Kevin JenningsQB370 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 33rd of 232 QBs
   1.92WAR1.24 to 2.70
2. Brashard SmithRB218 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 13th of 373 RBs
   0.58WAR0.41 to 0.74
3. Preston StoneQB43 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 188th of 232 QBs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.23
4. Roderick Daniels Jr.WR65 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 76th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.27
5. Collin RogersPK22 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 9th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
6. LJ Johnson Jr.RB58 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 227th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Moochie DixonWR18 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 186th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Jordan HudsonWR32 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 230th of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.03 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78878825th of 131Roster talent: 788, 25th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016077th of 131Recruiting: 160, 77th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%1st of 130Returning production: 92%, 1st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.5+17.512th of 131SP+ rating: +17.5, 12th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.05 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 LOUQ4 13:14 4th & 2 at SMU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs BCQ4 0:08 4th & 2 at BC 5, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. vs CALQ2 0:03 4th & 14 at SMU 45, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. vs CLEMQ2 7:37 4th & 1 at SMU 17, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs CALQ3 2:22 4th & 1 at SMU 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs CLEMQ2 0:35 4th & 16 at CLEM 41, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs FSUQ2 14:00 4th & 3 at FSU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at UVAQ1 4:13 4th & 1 at SMU 12, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

27th of 134 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

   NEV
2. W

   HCU
3. L

   BYU
4. W

   TCU
5. W

   FSU
6. W

   LOU
7. W

   STAN
8. W

   DUKE
9. W

   PITT
10. W

    BC
11. W

    UVA
12. W

    CAL
13. L

    CLEM
14. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.88
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.16
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.82

Game by game

• NEVW 29-24 at NEV96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• HCUW 59-7 vs HCU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• BYUL 15-18 vs BYU80% → 6%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• TCUW 66-42 vs TCU47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +49, Clock −1
• FSUW 42-16 vs FSU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −2
• LOUW 34-27 at LOU38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• STANW 40-10 at STAN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• DUKEW 28-27 at DUKE79% → 58%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −21: Timeouts +18, Scoreboard +18
• PITTW 48-25 vs PITT70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33
• BCW 38-28 vs BC89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• UVAW 33-7 at UVA78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27
• CALW 38-6 vs CAL80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• CLEML 31-34 vs CLEM53% → 6%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• PSUL 10-38 at PSU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28

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.