Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1040th
  Defense+0.1925th
• 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.
  Offense41.2%39th
  Defense44.9%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3274th
  Defense+1.2837th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1060th
  Defense+0.1428th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1138th
  Defense+0.2534th
• 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%31st
  Defense48.7%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%63rd
  Defense36.3%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9558th
  Defense3.0633rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%60th
  Defense17.2%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%42nd
  Defense13.7%19th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   USA
2. L
   LT
3. L
   TULN
4. W
   UNT
5. L
   LIB
6. L
   RICE
7. W
   UNA
8. L
   WKU
9. L
   UTSA
10. W
    FAU

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

Players, 2020

1. Jack AbrahamQB160 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 74th of 212 QBs
   0.44WAR0.17 to 0.74
2. Frank Gore Jr.RB113 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 61st of 338 RBs
   0.39WAR0.31 to 0.48
3. Kevin PerkinsRB58 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 167th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
4. Tate WhatleyQB78 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 149th of 212 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.28
5. Jason BrownleeWR46 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 78th of 409 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Tim JonesWR44 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 86th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Demarcus JonesWR32 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Briggs BourgeoisPK14 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 28th of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40140191st of 127Roster talent: 401, 91st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715774th of 127Recruiting: 157, 74th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%79th of 127Returning production: 57%, 79th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.9−7.9101st of 127SP+ rating: −7.9, 101st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.06 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 UNTQ2 6:24 4th & 2 at UNT 17, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. at UNTQ4 0:37 4th & 7 at UNT 29, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at WKUQ2 1:32 4th & 2 at USM 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs FAUQ3 9:39 4th & 2 at USM 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs RICEQ2 8:05 4th & 3 at RICE 28, down 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at LIBQ4 7:32 4th & 15 at USM 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs UTSAQ2 10:43 4th & 2 at USM 12, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs RICEQ3 3:54 4th & 3 at USM 41, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

122nd of 127 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

   USA
2. L

   LT
3. L

   TULN
4. W

   UNT
5. L

   LIB
6. L

   RICE
7. W

   UNA
8. L

   WKU
9. L

   UTSA
10. W

    FAU

What moved it, 2020

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−1.61
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• USAL 21-32 vs USA80% → 3%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −62, Clock −4
• LTL 30-31 vs LT69% → 14%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• TULNL 24-66 vs TULN44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48
• UNTW 41-31 at UNT47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• LIBL 35-56 at LIB20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +1
• RICEL 6-30 vs RICE47% → 1%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −1
• UNAW 24-13 vs UNA87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• WKUL 7-10 at WKU34% → 16%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• UTSAL 20-23 vs UTSA26% → 12%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −32, Clock −3
• FAUW 45-31 vs FAU29% → 99%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +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.