Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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−0.032nd
  Defense+0.1832nd
• 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.
  Offense35.9%5th
  Defense41.3%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3270th
  Defense+1.399th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.092nd
  Defense+0.1340th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1627th
  Defense+0.2532nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%8th
  Defense46.0%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%9th
  Defense31.4%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7817th
  Defense3.2918th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%9th
  Defense13.2%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.6%1st
  Defense17.5%66th

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, 2021

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. W
   GRAM
3. L
   TROY
4. L
   ALA
5. L
   RICE
6. L
   UTEP
7. L
   UAB
8. L
   MTSU
9. L
   UNT
10. L
    UTSA
11. W
    LT
12. W
    FIU

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

Players, 2021

1. Frank Gore Jr.RB126 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 97th of 387 RBs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.54
2. Jake LangeQB153 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 155th of 219 QBs
   0.35WAR0.05 to 0.67
3. Jason BrownleeWR48 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 82nd of 474 WRs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.25
4. Mason HuntP44 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 72nd of 101 punters
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.16
5. Demarcus JonesWR20 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 381st of 474 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Briggs BourgeoisPK10 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 103rd of 128 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Antoine RobinsonWR6 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 433rd of 474 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Ty KeyesQB43 plays · +0.017 pts/play · 213th of 219 QBs
   0.01WAR−0.06 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46646685th of 130Roster talent: 466, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14514589th of 130Recruiting: 145, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%107th of 128Returning production: 48%, 107th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.2−14.2116th of 130SP+ rating: −14.2, 116th 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, 2021

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 UNTQ2 10:14 4th & 3 at UNT 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at UTSAQ3 12:03 4th & 1 at USM 13, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at MTSUQ2 0:00 4th & 21 at USM 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. vs TROYQ2 1:13 4th & 1 at USM 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs FIUQ2 2:27 4th & 4 at FIU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs UABQ2 11:37 4th & 1 at USM 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at RICEQ2 13:34 4th & 3 at RICE 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at LTQ4 2:08 4th & 10 at LT 43, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

95th 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

   USA
2. W

   GRAM
3. L

   TROY
4. L

   ALA
5. L

   RICE
6. L

   UTEP
7. L

   UAB
8. L

   MTSU
9. L

   UNT
10. L

    UTSA
11. W

    LT
12. W

    FIU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.99
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.68

Game by game

• USAL 7-31 at USA41% → 2%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• GRAMW 37-0 vs GRAM93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• TROYL 9-21 vs TROY21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• ALAL 14-63 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• RICEL 19-24 at RICE43% → 50%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11, Clock +3
• UTEPL 13-26 vs UTEP41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• UABL 0-34 vs UAB12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• MTSUL 10-35 at MTSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UNTL 14-38 vs UNT33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• UTSAL 17-27 at UTSA2% → 5%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −7
• LTW 35-19 at LT14% → 89%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +51, Possession & field position −3
• FIUW 37-17 vs FIU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30

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.