Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1252nd
  Defense+0.0864th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%54th
  Defense35.6%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2674th
  Defense+1.471st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.1524th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2575th
  Defense−0.0191st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%47th
  Defense41.8%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.
  Offense36.2%72nd
  Defense25.6%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6917th
  Defense2.5384th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%46th
  Defense25.5%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%16th
  Defense21.4%94th

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, 2016

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. W
   UK
2. W
   SAV
3. L
   TROY
4. W
   UTEP
5. W
   RICE
6. L
   UTSA
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   MRSH
9. L
   CLT
10. L
    ODU
11. L
    UNT
12. W
    LT
13. W
    UL

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

Players, 2016

1. Nick MullensQB371 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 31st of 218 QBs
   1.80WAR1.19 to 2.41
2. Ito SmithRB279 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 9th of 347 RBs
   0.88WAR0.62 to 1.11
3. Allenzae StaggersWR78 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 18th of 417 WRs
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.45
4. Tyler SarrazinP47 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 7th of 82 punters
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.35
5. George PayneRB82 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 191st of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
6. D.J. ThompsonWR61 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 127th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.23
7. Korey RobertsonWR47 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 187th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Keon HowardQB64 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 198th of 218 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.10 to 0.26

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44144183rd of 128Roster talent: 441, 83rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12812886th of 128Recruiting: 128, 86th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%82nd of 128Returning production: 58%, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.7+0.765th of 128SP+ rating: +0.7, 65th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.17 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 LTQ3 11:50 4th & 19 at USM 49, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.5 pts
2. vs LTQ4 7:48 4th & 2 at LT 8, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at UKQ4 2:24 4th & 3 at UK 8, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs TROYQ3 10:06 4th & 7 at USM 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
5. at UNTQ4 15:00 4th & 9 at UNT 25, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. at UKQ4 2:07 4th & 20 at UK 43, up 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
7. at UNTQ1 3:16 4th & 1 at USM 19, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs MRSHQ3 12:21 4th & 3 at USM 10, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

96th 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. W

   UK
2. W

   SAV
3. L

   TROY
4. W

   UTEP
5. W

   RICE
6. L

   UTSA
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   MRSH
9. L

   CLT
10. L

    ODU
11. L

    UNT
12. W

    LT
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2016

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−0.10
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• UKW 44-35 at UK26% → 95%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• SAVW 56-0 vs SAV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TROYL 31-37 vs TROY79% → 19%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +6
• UTEPW 34-7 at UTEP74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• RICEW 44-28 vs RICE93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• UTSAL 32-55 at UTSA83% → 1%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −58, Possession & field position +1
• LSUL 10-45 at LSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MRSHW 24-14 vs MRSH74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +1
• CLTL 27-38 vs CLT88% → 5%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• ODUL 35-51 at ODU42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• UNTL 23-29 at UNT71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• LTW 39-24 vs LT22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +58, Clock −3
• ULW 28-21 at UL57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, 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.