Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0924th
  Defense+0.1928th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%17th
  Defense44.1%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2468th
  Defense+1.2146th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.076th
  Defense+0.0956th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1946th
  Defense+0.3513th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.1%8th
  Defense47.5%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.8%67th
  Defense37.2%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.102nd
  Defense2.8748th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.9%3rd
  Defense20.3%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.9%10th
  Defense1.7%31st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Southern Miss 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. L
   MSST
2. W
   ALCN
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   APP
5. L
   RICE
6. L
   MTSU
7. W
   UNT
8. L
   LT
9. L
   UTEP
10. L
    MRSH
11. L
    UTSA
12. L
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Southern Miss.

Players, 2014

1. Nick MullensQB260 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 68th of 199 QBs
   1.41WAR1.02 to 1.82
2. Cole WeeksQB86 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 145th of 199 QBs
   0.39WAR0.26 to 0.53
3. Michael ThomasWR44 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 57th of 469 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.29
4. George PayneRB84 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 139th of 350 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Ito SmithRB73 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 166th of 350 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Markese TriplettWR36 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 176th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Corey AcostaPK14 plays · +0.423 pts/play · 54th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Jalen RichardRB59 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 208th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17

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 Southern Miss'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Southern Miss's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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. vs ALCNQ4 7:32 4th & 2 at USM 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at UTEPQ3 9:26 4th & 2 at UTEP 24, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at UTEPQ2 0:20 4th & 7 at UTEP 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. vs APPQ2 8:33 4th & 1 at USM 19, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ALCNQ3 12:23 4th & 1 at USM 29, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at UNTQ3 15:00 4th & 9 at UNT 47, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
7. at UNTQ2 6:14 4th & 1 at USM 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at MTSUQ3 6:33 4th & 4 at MTSU 42, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

81st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Southern Miss's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   MSST
2. W

   ALCN
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   APP
5. L

   RICE
6. L

   MTSU
7. W

   UNT
8. L

   LT
9. L

   UTEP
10. L

    MRSH
11. L

    UTSA
12. L

    UAB

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Southern Miss'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−0.92
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• MSSTL 0-49 at MSST4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• ALCNW 26-20 vs ALCN88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 12-52 at ALA0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• APPW 21-20 vs APP59% → 93%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• RICEL 23-41 vs RICE26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• MTSUL 31-37 at MTSU14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 30-20 at UNT28% → 97%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• LTL 20-31 vs LT20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• UTEPL 14-35 at UTEP34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 17-63 vs MRSH5% → 8%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +1
• UTSAL 10-12 at UTSA24% → 5%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26
• UABL 24-45 vs UAB44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Southern Miss's side.

Closest call

USM 34-27 LT (2017) - Southern Miss dropped to a 3.8% win probability before pulling it out.