Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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
  Defense0.0089th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%17th
  Defense36.5%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2865th
  Defense+1.3030th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense0.0078th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2557th
  Defense+0.1376th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%25th
  Defense41.9%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.9%12th
  Defense27.0%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.778th
  Defense2.8285th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%3rd
  Defense17.1%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%12th
  Defense19.5%89th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   LIB
2. L
   MIA
3. W
   NWST
4. W
   TULN
5. L
   TROY
6. W
   ARST
7. W
   TXST
8. W
   UL
9. L
   GAST
10. L
    CCU
11. L
    USA
12. W
    ULM
13. W
    RICE

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

Players, 2022

1. Frank Gore Jr.RB184 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 17th of 384 RBs
   0.60WAR0.45 to 0.77
2. Jason BrownleeWR62 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 18th of 455 WRs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
3. Trey LoweQB133 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 171st of 234 QBs
   0.22WAR−0.04 to 0.47
4. Zach WilckeQB164 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 187th of 234 QBs
   0.14WAR−0.18 to 0.48
5. Janari DeanRB51 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 255th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. Mason HuntP61 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 32nd of 102 punters
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.18
7. Jakarius CastonWR24 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 240th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Briggs BourgeoisPK15 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 47th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47947984th of 129Roster talent: 479, 84th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414490th of 129Recruiting: 144, 90th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%24th of 128Returning production: 78%, 24th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.5−3.579th of 129SP+ rating: −3.5, 79th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.19 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 CCUQ4 10:44 4th & 4 at CCU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs RICEQ2 2:40 4th & 1 at RICE 1, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs ARSTQ3 13:01 4th & 1 at USM 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs ULQ4 14:47 4th & 4 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at CCUQ4 6:11 4th & 12 at CCU 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. at TROYQ3 9:32 4th & 1 at USM 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at TXSTQ4 2:14 4th & 5 at TXST 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at TXSTQ3 6:32 4th & 5 at TXST 41, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

50th of 131 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

   LIB
2. L

   MIA
3. W

   NWST
4. W

   TULN
5. L

   TROY
6. W

   ARST
7. W

   TXST
8. W

   UL
9. L

   GAST
10. L

    CCU
11. L

    USA
12. W

    ULM
13. W

    RICE

What moved it, 2022

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+0.46
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.24
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• LIBL 27-29 vs LIB49% → 60%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +11: Timeouts −25, Clock +16
• MIAL 7-30 at MIA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• NWSTW 64-10 vs NWST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TULNW 27-24 at TULN20% → 73%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −3
• TROYL 10-27 at TROY38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +2
• ARSTW 20-19 vs ARST68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• TXSTW 20-14 at TXST65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• ULW 39-24 vs UL52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• GASTL 14-42 vs GAST58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• CCUL 23-26 at CCU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• USAL 20-27 vs USA36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• ULMW 20-10 at ULM63% → 96%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• RICEW 38-24 vs RICE74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, 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.