Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1255th
  Defense+0.0374th
• 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.
  Offense39.3%24th
  Defense41.5%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3384th
  Defense+1.2161st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense+0.1130th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2262nd
  Defense+0.0390th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%19th
  Defense46.9%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.9%47th
  Defense29.8%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9653rd
  Defense2.9935th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%49th
  Defense18.4%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%34th
  Defense17.4%78th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MSST
2. W
   JKST
3. W
   APP
4. L
   LT
5. W
   JXST
6. W
   GASO
7. W
   UL
8. W
   ULM
9. W
   ARST
10. L
    TXST
11. L
    USA
12. L
    TROY
13. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2025

1. Braylon BraxtonQB342 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 68th of 231 QBs
   1.19WAR0.54 to 1.86
2. Jeffery PittmanRB142 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 66th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.33
3. Carl ChesterWR38 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 86th of 451 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
4. Matt JonesRB73 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 204th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
5. Kyirin HeathTE24 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 36th of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Tychaun ChapmanWR29 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Bralon BrownWR34 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 292nd of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12
8. Micah DavisWR35 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 304th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.03 to 0.12

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60360383rd of 134Roster talent: 603, 83rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615680th of 134Recruiting: 156, 80th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  17%17%106th of 132Returning production: 17%, 106th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.192nd of 134SP+ rating: −7.1, 92nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 of the 0.13 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 ULQ4 4:49 4th & 6 at UL 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at ARSTQ3 8:50 4th & 3 at ARST 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs WKUQ4 6:17 4th & 7 at USM 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at LTQ3 10:56 4th & 1 at USM 33, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs WKUQ2 9:04 4th & 1 at USM 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at USAQ4 12:13 4th & 10 at USA 21, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs TXSTQ2 4:31 4th & 4 at TXST 48, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at USAQ4 8:32 4th & 5 at USA 11, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

79th of 136 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

   MSST
2. W

   JKST
3. W

   APP
4. L

   LT
5. W

   JXST
6. W

   GASO
7. W

   UL
8. W

   ULM
9. W

   ARST
10. L

    TXST
11. L

    USA
12. L

    TROY
13. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.73
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• MSSTL 17-34 vs MSST14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −3
• JKSTW 38-20 vs JKST84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −1
• APPW 38-22 vs APP41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53, Clock −2
• LTL 20-30 at LT38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +2
• JXSTW 42-25 vs JXST65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Clock −3
• GASOW 38-35 at GASO52% → 95%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• ULW 22-10 at UL60% → 16%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• ULMW 49-21 vs ULM80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +22
• ARSTW 27-21 at ARST60% → 80%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position −4
• TXSTL 14-41 vs TXST58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• USAL 35-42 at USA56% → 3%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• TROYL 18-28 vs TROY66% → 3%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• WKUL 16-27 vs WKU58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

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.