Southern Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0936th
  Defense+0.2411th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%56th
  Defense44.9%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2343rd
  Defense+1.3127th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2077th
  Defense+0.291st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1124th
  Defense+0.2924th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%68th
  Defense49.1%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.5%20th
  Defense34.4%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5191st
  Defense3.359th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.1%91st
  Defense14.1%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%47th
  Defense11.6%7th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   AUB
3. L
   CONN
4. L
   TULN
5. L
   TROY

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

Players, 2026

1. Landry LyddyQB69 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 116th of 192 QBs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
2. Steven RobinsonRB38 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 152nd of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
3. Ethan HamptonQB26 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 165th of 192 QBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
4. Creighton WilbanksPK4 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 71st of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
5. Jamarice WilderRB5 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
6. Robert BriggsRB3 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60360394th of 138Roster talent: 603, 94th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16116183rd of 138Recruiting: 161, 83rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%7th of 136Returning production: 90%, 7th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.3−18.3128th of 138SP+ rating so far: −18.3, 128th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 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 TROYQ4 0:18 4th & 12 at TROY 16, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
2. vs CONNQ2 4:34 4th & 13 at CONN 41, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
3. vs CONNQ3 13:27 4th & 11 at CONN 41, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
4. at TULNQ1 0:21 4th & 18 at TULN 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at TULNQ4 1:45 4th & 3 at TULN 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
6. vs ALCNQ4 6:08 4th & 3 at USM 40, up 46Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. vs ALCNQ3 6:37 4th & 4 at USM 46, up 32Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at AUBQ4 6:13 4th & 10 at AUB 45, down 35Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

116th of 138 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

   AUB
3. L

   CONN
4. L

   TULN
5. L

   TROY

What moved it, 2026

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−0.96
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15

Game by game

• ALCNW 49-3 vs ALCN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• AUBL 8-43 at AUB3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• CONNL 20-48 vs CONN50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• TULNL 21-24 at TULN16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• TROYL 34-55 at TROY29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, 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.