Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0523rd
  Defense+0.1627th
• 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.
  Offense36.7%9th
  Defense42.3%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3586th
  Defense+1.427th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1052nd
  Defense+0.1621st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0816th
  Defense+0.2923rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.5%4th
  Defense46.5%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%33rd
  Defense33.0%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8821st
  Defense3.2423rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%19th
  Defense15.4%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%13th
  Defense15.9%45th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ALCN
2. L
   FSU
3. L
   TULN
4. L
   ARST
5. L
   TXST
6. L
   ODU
7. L
   USA
8. L
   APP
9. W
   ULM
10. W
    UL
11. L
    MSST
12. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2023

1. Billy WilesQB238 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 106th of 250 QBs
   0.78WAR0.18 to 1.38
2. Frank Gore Jr.RB194 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 6th of 383 RBs
   0.63WAR0.44 to 0.83
3. Ethan CrawfordQB71 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 179th of 250 QBs
   0.22WAR0.01 to 0.41
4. Jakarius CastonWR38 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 79th of 457 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
5. Ty MimsWR38 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 116th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Andrew SteinPK14 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 81st of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Latreal JonesWR33 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 243rd of 457 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
8. Bryce LoftonP45 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 78th of 103 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  425425106th of 130Roster talent: 425, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14514584th of 130Recruiting: 145, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%44th of 128Returning production: 63%, 44th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.4−14.4113th of 130SP+ rating: −14.4, 113th 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, 2023

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 ODUQ4 12:29 4th & 1 at USM 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs ODUQ3 3:24 4th & 2 at USM 30, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at ULQ3 9:21 4th & 2 at UL 27, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs ULMQ2 2:50 4th & 2 at ULM 20, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at ARSTQ3 12:23 4th & 3 at ARST 49, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs ODUQ2 9:14 4th & 2 at ODU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs TULNQ2 0:23 4th & 14 at TULN 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs TROYQ2 13:21 4th & 2 at TROY 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

110th of 133 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

   ALCN
2. L

   FSU
3. L

   TULN
4. L

   ARST
5. L

   TXST
6. L

   ODU
7. L

   USA
8. L

   APP
9. W

   ULM
10. W

    UL
11. L

    MSST
12. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2023

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−2.38
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• ALCNW 40-14 vs ALCN93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• FSUL 13-66 at FSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4
• TULNL 3-21 vs TULN31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• ARSTL 37-44 at ARST72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• TXSTL 36-50 vs TXST37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• ODUL 13-17 vs ODU66% → 2%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −11
• USAL 3-55 at USA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• APPL 38-48 at APP15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• ULMW 24-7 vs ULM67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34
• ULW 34-31 at UL26% → 15%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +18
• MSSTL 20-41 at MSST12% → 10%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +2
• TROYL 17-35 vs TROY14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −23, 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.