Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1154th
  Defense+0.0367th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%36th
  Defense38.8%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2260th
  Defense+1.2726th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0549th
  Defense−0.0482nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1959th
  Defense+0.1255th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%27th
  Defense42.1%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%69th
  Defense32.9%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9968th
  Defense2.3294th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%57th
  Defense29.2%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%36th
  Defense20.0%88th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   UK
2. W
   SOU
3. W
   ULM
4. L
   UNT
5. W
   UTSA
6. W
   UTEP
7. W
   LT
8. L
   UAB
9. L
   TENN
10. W
    RICE
11. W
    CLT
12. W
    MRSH
13. L
    FSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Kwadra GriggsQB254 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 85th of 226 QBs
   0.91WAR0.44 to 1.39
2. Ito SmithRB248 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 9th of 352 RBs
   0.73WAR0.52 to 0.94
3. Keon HowardQB198 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 137th of 226 QBs
   0.39WAR0.02 to 0.76
4. Korey RobertsonWR87 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 15th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
5. Allenzae StaggersWR70 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 50th of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.27
6. Parker ShaunfieldPK15 plays · +0.526 pts/play · 21st of 110 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
7. Zac EverettP56 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 27th of 95 punters
   0.08WAR−0.02 to 0.18
8. Isaiah JonesWR32 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 375th of 426 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39439487th of 130Roster talent: 394, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13413482nd of 130Recruiting: 134, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%83rd of 128Returning production: 53%, 83rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.4−3.484th of 128SP+ rating: −3.4, 84th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 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. vs UKQ4 5:09 4th & 7 at UK 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at MRSHQ3 11:31 4th & 1 at USM 23, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at LTQ4 1:23 4th & 6 at LT 32, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at MRSHQ2 2:13 4th & 2 at USM 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UKQ4 1:37 4th & 20 at USM 1, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs UABQ3 11:01 4th & 3 at USM 29, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UNTQ2 2:42 4th & 7 at UNT 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at FSUQ2 0:02 4th & 5 at USM 44, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

52nd of 130 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

   UK
2. W

   SOU
3. W

   ULM
4. L

   UNT
5. W

   UTSA
6. W

   UTEP
7. W

   LT
8. L

   UAB
9. L

   TENN
10. W

    RICE
11. W

    CLT
12. W

    MRSH
13. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.36

Game by game

• UKL 17-24 vs UK23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SOUW 45-0 vs SOU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ULMW 28-17 at ULM67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• UNTL 28-43 vs UNT75% → 1%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• UTSAW 31-29 at UTSA22% → 89%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• UTEPW 24-0 vs UTEP94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• LTW 34-27 at LT51% → 85%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +18
• UABL 12-30 vs UAB79% → 1%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −66, Clock −2
• TENNL 10-24 at TENN32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• RICEW 43-34 at RICE80% → 96%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• CLTW 66-21 vs CLT90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• MRSHW 28-27 at MRSH47% → 76%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Clock +5
• FSUL 13-42 at FSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19

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.