SMU

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1773rd
  Defense−0.0593rd
• 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.
  Offense42.6%53rd
  Defense40.2%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3690th
  Defense+1.1876th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0853rd
  Defense−0.1498th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3484th
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%46th
  Defense43.7%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%66th
  Defense32.9%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9045th
  Defense2.7667th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%40th
  Defense22.0%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%27th
  Defense18.8%89th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ETAM
2. L
   BAY
3. W
   MOST
4. L
   TCU
5. W
   SYR
6. W
   STAN
7. W
   CLEM
8. L
   WAKE
9. W
   MIA
10. W
    BC
11. W
    LOU
12. L
    CAL
13. W
    ARIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for SMU.

Players, 2025

1. Kevin JenningsQB416 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 2nd of 231 QBs
   2.65WAR1.93 to 3.34
2. T.J. HardenRB149 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 54th of 365 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.37
3. Jordan HudsonWR75 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 106th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.32
4. Chris Johnson Jr.RB75 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 166th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Yamir KnightWR56 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 156th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.02 to 0.23
6. Matthew HibnerTE34 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 21st of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Sam KeltnerPK17 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 52nd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. RJ MarylandTE29 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 56th of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76776725th of 134Roster talent: 767, 25th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017073rd of 134Recruiting: 170, 73rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%41st of 132Returning production: 50%, 41st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.4+13.423rd of 134SP+ rating: +13.4, 23rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.08 of the 0.12 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 WAKEQ4 12:03 4th & 1 at SMU 15, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.7 pts
2. at WAKEQ2 3:53 4th & 2 at WAKE 18, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at WAKEQ2 8:16 4th & 1 at SMU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs ARIZQ4 2:43 4th & 2 at SMU 48, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at MOSTQ3 6:29 4th & 3 at SMU 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs ARIZQ4 14:03 4th & 2 at SMU 18, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at CALQ2 6:23 4th & 6 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs BAYQ1 0:38 4th & 4 at SMU 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

63rd of 136 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

   ETAM
2. L

   BAY
3. W

   MOST
4. L

   TCU
5. W

   SYR
6. W

   STAN
7. W

   CLEM
8. L

   WAKE
9. W

   MIA
10. W

    BC
11. W

    LOU
12. L

    CAL
13. W

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2025

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+1.38
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.29
• Timeouts−0.61
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• ETAMW 42-13 vs ETAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BAYL 45-48 vs BAY52% → 56%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +3: Timeouts −26, Clock +17
• MOSTW 28-10 at MOST97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9
• TCUL 24-35 at TCU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −1
• SYRW 31-18 vs SYR89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• STANW 34-10 vs STAN90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• CLEMW 35-24 at CLEM34% → 93%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts −7
• WAKEL 12-13 at WAKE66% → 6%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −2
• MIAW 26-20 vs MIA31% → 85%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −26
• BCW 45-13 at BC75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• LOUW 38-6 vs LOU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• CALL 35-38 at CAL84% → 4%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• ARIZW 24-19 vs ARIZ57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, 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.