Southern Miss · No. 113 · Week 7 analysis

Where the team stands

Southern Miss ranks No. 113 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -9.91 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 109; this update moves it -4 places and -2.11 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 6 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–5. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -3.301. Prior-season margin: -0.484.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0057; EPA/play net: +0.0412; success-rate net: +0.0528; explosiveness net: -0.3815. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 2 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Southern Miss lost to Arkansas State by 10 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -1.78; the result was -8.22 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Louisiana on 2026-10-24. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 289 versus 304; Net passing yards: 208 versus 170; Rushing yards: 81 versus 134; First downs: 14 versus 23

Completions–attempts: 18-34 versus 17-25; Rush attempts: 25 versus 51; Yards per pass: 6.1 versus 6.8; Yards per rush: 3.2 versus 2.6

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 23 points and recorded 304 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 4 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 10 versus 2; Third downs: 5-14 versus 4-17; Fourth downs: 0-3 versus 3-3

Turnovers: 2 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 2 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 7-53 versus 5-50; Possession time: 19:52 versus 40:08

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–5. The expected final record is 3.1–8.9 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 112 UAB (-9.81); No. 114 West Virginia (-10.01).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.