Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.121st
  Defense+0.285th
• 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.
  Offense34.7%3rd
  Defense44.1%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2647th
  Defense+1.437th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0411th
  Defense+0.253rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.201st
  Defense+0.3111th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.0%5th
  Defense48.4%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.4%6th
  Defense34.5%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.596th
  Defense3.2226th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.3%2nd
  Defense17.9%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense26.0%1st
  Defense14.3%23rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UK
2. W
   SELA
3. L
   USF
4. L
   JXST
5. L
   UL
6. L
   ULM
7. L
   ARST
8. L
   JMU
9. L
   MRSH
10. L
    TXST
11. L
    USA
12. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2024

1. Tate RodemakerQB111 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 157th of 232 QBs
   0.30WAR0.12 to 0.50
2. Ethan CrawfordQB151 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 160th of 232 QBs
   0.29WAR−0.03 to 0.57
3. Rodrigues ClarkRB86 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 129th of 373 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
4. Kenyon ClayRB68 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 190th of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Bryce LoftonP43 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 59th of 106 punters
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.13
6. Ty MimsWR18 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 263rd of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
7. Kyirin HeathTE10 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 104th of 221 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Chandler PittmanRB6 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 332nd of 373 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56656690th of 131Roster talent: 566, 90th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14614687th of 131Recruiting: 146, 87th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%113th of 130Returning production: 22%, 113th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −25.6−25.6130th of 131SP+ rating: −25.6, 130th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 JMUQ4 2:08 4th & 19 at USM 22, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
2. vs MRSHQ2 0:03 4th & 15 at MRSH 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
3. at TROYQ2 4:11 4th & 2 at TROY 28, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs SELAQ3 9:00 4th & 3 at SELA 26, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs ULQ3 10:50 4th & 9 at midfield, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs SELAQ3 2:20 4th & 3 at USM 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs USAQ4 3:51 4th & 7 at USA 25, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at JMUQ2 1:55 4th & 6 at JMU 37, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

119th of 134 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

   UK
2. W

   SELA
3. L

   USF
4. L

   JXST
5. L

   UL
6. L

   ULM
7. L

   ARST
8. L

   JMU
9. L

   MRSH
10. L

    TXST
11. L

    USA
12. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2024

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−2.14
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.56

Game by game

• UKL 0-31 at UK5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• SELAW 35-10 vs SELA90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• USFL 24-49 vs USF16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• JXSTL 7-44 at JXST36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +1
• ULL 13-23 vs UL12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• ULML 21-38 at ULM40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +2
• ARSTL 28-44 vs ARST27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −6
• JMUL 15-32 at JMU7% → 6%Before kickoff −43 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 3-37 vs MRSH20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 3-58 at TXST5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• USAL 14-35 vs USA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12
• TROYL 20-52 at TROY13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16

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.