Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2182nd
  Defense+0.0665th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%53rd
  Defense39.4%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4699th
  Defense+1.1950th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0646th
  Defense−0.0278th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3487th
  Defense+0.1448th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%31st
  Defense43.2%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.9%76th
  Defense32.6%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8448th
  Defense2.5782nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%39th
  Defense24.7%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense2.5%79th

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, 2015

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
   APSU
3. W
   TXST
4. L
   NEB
5. W
   UNT
6. L
   MRSH
7. W
   UTSA
8. W
   CLT
9. W
   UTEP
10. W
    RICE
11. W
    ODU
12. W
    LT
13. L
    WKU
14. L
    WASH

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

Players, 2015

1. Nick MullensQB431 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 11th of 205 QBs
   2.69WAR1.99 to 3.44
2. Michael ThomasWR89 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 5th of 411 WRs
   0.44WAR0.27 to 0.59
3. Jalen RichardRB166 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 48th of 333 RBs
   0.37WAR0.24 to 0.50
4. Ito SmithRB185 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 79th of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.43
5. D.J. ThompsonWR66 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 94th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.28
6. Casey MartinWR77 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 117th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.27
7. Tyler SarrazinP36 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 65th of 92 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.13
8. Justice HayesRB28 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 249th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47147174th of 128Roster talent: 471, 74th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13013082nd of 128Recruiting: 130, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%55th of 127Returning production: 69%, 55th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.4+1.470th of 128SP+ rating: +1.4, 70th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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 LTQ2 4:10 4th & 3 at LT 3, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs UTSAQ2 8:38 4th & 1 at UTSA 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at WKUQ2 1:11 4th & 4 at WKU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at LTQ3 10:39 4th & 7 at LT 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at CLTQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at CLT 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs WASHQ2 10:56 4th & 3 at WASH 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UTEPQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at USM 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MRSHQ2 4:25 4th & 4 at MRSH 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

30th 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

   APSU
3. W

   TXST
4. L

   NEB
5. W

   UNT
6. L

   MRSH
7. W

   UTSA
8. W

   CLT
9. W

   UTEP
10. W

    RICE
11. W

    ODU
12. W

    LT
13. L

    WKU
14. L

    WASH

What moved it, 2015

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+1.00
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.10

Game by game

• MSSTL 16-34 vs MSST17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −27
• APSUW 52-6 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TXSTW 56-50 at TXST45% → 96%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• NEBL 28-36 at NEB6% → 8%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position +1
• UNTW 49-14 vs UNT83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21
• MRSHL 10-31 at MRSH36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• UTSAW 32-10 vs UTSA73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• CLTW 44-10 at CLT87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• UTEPW 34-13 vs UTEP92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• RICEW 65-10 at RICE70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• ODUW 56-31 vs ODU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −1
• LTW 58-24 at LT36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• WKUL 28-45 at WKU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32
• WASHL 31-44 vs WASH30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1

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.