Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0112th
  Defense−0.0898th
• 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.
  Offense39.5%18th
  Defense33.8%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2153rd
  Defense+1.1862nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.142nd
  Defense−0.0995th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1235th
  Defense−0.0695th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%10th
  Defense40.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%57th
  Defense23.3%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5212th
  Defense2.4989th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.8%6th
  Defense25.2%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%6th
  Defense16.9%63rd

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, 2018

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
   JKST
2. L
   ULM
3. W
   RICE
4. L
   AUB
5. L
   UNT
6. W
   UTSA
7. L
   CLT
8. W
   MRSH
9. L
   UAB
10. W
    LT
11. W
    UTEP

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

Players, 2018

1. Jack AbrahamQB292 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 97th of 225 QBs
   0.86WAR0.40 to 1.37
2. Tate WhatleyQB115 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 157th of 225 QBs
   0.36WAR0.15 to 0.61
3. Trivenskey MosleyRB94 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 194th of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
4. Steven AndersonRB61 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 201st of 351 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
5. Quez WatkinsWR87 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 74th of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.05 to 0.29
6. Parker ShaunfieldPK16 plays · +0.451 pts/play · 26th of 112 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.17
7. Tim JonesWR48 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 138th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
8. Jordan MitchellWR39 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  387387101st of 130Roster talent: 387, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314381st of 130Recruiting: 143, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%100th of 129Returning production: 44%, 100th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.0−5.092nd of 130SP+ rating: −5.0, 92nd of 130 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, 2018

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 0.08 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 MRSHQ2 5:04 4th & 13 at USM 13, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.3 pts
2. vs LTQ4 0:03 4th & 6 at LT 47, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
3. vs RICEQ3 2:10 4th & 1 at RICE 27, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs LTQ2 4:33 4th & 2 at USM 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs ULMQ1 2:01 4th & 3 at ULM 25, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs UTSAQ4 3:36 4th & 7 at UTSA 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at UNTQ4 7:16 4th & 18 at UNT 42, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at CLTQ3 3:53 4th & 11 at CLT 36, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

71st 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. W

   JKST
2. L

   ULM
3. W

   RICE
4. L

   AUB
5. L

   UNT
6. W

   UTSA
7. L

   CLT
8. W

   MRSH
9. L

   UAB
10. W

    LT
11. W

    UTEP

What moved it, 2018

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−0.08
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• JKSTW 55-7 vs JKST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ULML 20-21 vs ULM64% → 7%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• RICEW 40-22 vs RICE82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• AUBL 13-24 at AUB4% → 3%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −9
• UNTL 7-30 at UNT30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• UTSAW 27-17 vs UTSA87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19
• CLTL 17-20 at CLT62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −2
• MRSHW 26-24 vs MRSH44% → 89%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• UABL 23-26 at UAB17% → 44%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +1, Possession & field position +1
• LTW 21-20 vs LT54% → 93%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• UTEPW 39-7 at UTEP83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, 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.