Next up projections
vs Missouri
Week 9 · Sat Oct 31, Time TBA · Razorback Stadium · Missouri (FBS, SEC)
·
Both models favor Missouri (SP+ from the week 7 snapshot).
Our call posts Monday, Oct 26, when that week's ratings are set.
Regression watch: Last game's 10-point win matched the play (score -3 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 9th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +4.2); 3rd-toughest remaining (+13.8). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 7 played · 5 left
- Week 1 vs North Alabama (-33.2) · FCS, pooled
- Week 2 at Utah (+13.7)
- Week 3 vs Georgia (+21.9)
- Week 4 vs Tulsa (-4.0)
- Week 5 at Texas A&M (+12.4)
- Week 6 vs Tennessee (+16.1)
- Week 7 at Vanderbilt (+2.7)
- Remaining:
- Week 9 vs Missouri (+12.6)
- Week 10 at Auburn (+10.2)
- Week 11 vs South Carolina (+8.4)
- Week 12 at Texas (+17.1)
- Week 13 vs LSU (+20.8)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 8 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 7. Experimental, like the Our model card.
Series: Missouri leads 13–4 · last: Missouri 31–17, 2025 · Missouri has won 4 straight
Series history 17 meetings since 1906
- All-time: Missouri leads 13–4 (17 meetings since 1906)
- Last meeting: Missouri 31–17, 2025, Razorback Stadium
- Streak: Missouri has won 4 straight
- At Razorback Stadium: Missouri leads 3–1 (4 meetings)
- Biggest margins: Arkansas 28–3 (2015) · Missouri 38–0 (2018)
- Since 2000: Missouri leads 11–3 (14 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Missouri 31–17 | Razorback Stadium |
| 2024 | Missouri 28–21 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2023 | Missouri 48–14 | Razorback Stadium |
| 2022 | Missouri 29–27 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2021 | Arkansas 34–17 | War Memorial Stadium (AR) |
| 2020 | Missouri 50–48 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2019 | Missouri 24–14 | War Memorial Stadium (AR) |
| 2018 | Missouri 38–0 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2017 | Missouri 48–45 | Razorback Stadium |
| 2016 | Missouri 28–24 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2015 | Arkansas 28–3 | Razorback Stadium |
| 2014 | Missouri 21–14 | Memorial Stadium |
| 2007 | Missouri 38–7 | neutral site |
| 2003 | Arkansas 27–14 | neutral site |
| Rating | Arkansas | Missouri |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | -2.4 #84 | +18.0 #13 |
| Elo | 1515 | 1747 |
Projected margin for Arkansas · two models and the line, side by side
How to read this
- SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
- Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
- The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Arkansas's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
- In SP+, Elo the home team gets 2.5 points (Arkansas); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
- "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
- Our call is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
- Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
- After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · Arkansas 7 games, Missouri 7 games
Edge: Missouri wins 3 of 5
Missouri stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Arkansas moves the ball better and allows fewer big plays.
-
43%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 41%
-
43% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓35%
-
13% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓20%
-
1.06 Big playson offense ✓1.31
-
1.19✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.39
Run game, head to head · season to date
Arkansas's runs work 41% of the time; Missouri's run defense allows 35%. Missouri's runs work 36% of the time; Arkansas's run defense allows 47%.
More numbers
| Measure | Arkansas | Missouri | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 43.1% | 41.2% | Arkansas |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.06 | 1.31 | Missouri |
| Def. success rate allowed | 43.2% | 35.1% | Missouri |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.19 | 1.39 | Arkansas |
| Havoc created | 13.2% | 19.9% | Missouri |
- Run game, success rate: Arkansas offense 40.8% · Missouri defense allows 35.3% · edge: Missouri
- Run game, success rate: Missouri offense 36.5% · Arkansas defense allows 47.0% · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Arkansas offense -0.04 · Missouri defense allows -0.02 · edge: Missouri
- Run game, PPA per play: Missouri offense +0.03 · Arkansas defense allows +0.23 · edge: Missouri
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
Rest of the season experimental
| Date | Opponent | Our win chance | Projected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fri Oct 30 | vs #13 Missouri | 22% | by 12.1 them |
| Fri Nov 6 | at Auburn | 19% | by 13.3 them |
| Fri Nov 13 | vs South Carolina | 31% | by 7.3 them |
| Fri Nov 20 | at #7 Texas | 7% | by 22.6 them |
| Fri Nov 27 | vs #22 LSU | 12% | by 18.2 them |
Projected record: 3.9 wins on average; most likely 3-9 (40%). Conference title: 0%. Playoff: 0%. Playoff chances ›
From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations, the projected margin is Our call's (SP+, Elo and Our model averaged, 2.5 points to the home team).
Injuries
No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 1
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
Score and result
Arkansas 31, Vanderbilt 21W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ -6.1 ✗ · Elo -7.6 ✗ · Our model -8.6 ✗ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +10 · Closest: SP+
Away at FirstBank Stadium · Sat Oct 17, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · vs Vanderbilt (FBS, SEC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Vanderbilt (FBS, SEC).
- By quarter: Arkansas 0-14-14-3 · Vanderbilt 7-7-7-0
- Week 7 polls: neither team ranked
- Pregame Elo: Arkansas 1482, Vanderbilt 1610
- Postgame win probability: 74.1%
Verdict
The 10-point win matched the play: Arkansas's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.27 vs +0.10, success rate 48% vs 44%) implies roughly a +13 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Arkansas won 3 of 4
Arkansas moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Vanderbilt hit the bigger plays.
-
48%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 44%
-
+0.27✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.10
-
1.12 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.27
-
12%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 10%
More numbers
Arkansas ran 73 plays, Vanderbilt 62. Each number is that team's offense; Vanderbilt's column is also what Arkansas's defense allowed.
| Measure | Arkansas | Vanderbilt | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.27 | +0.10 | Arkansas |
| Total PPA | +19.5 | +6.3 | Arkansas |
| Success rate | 47.9% | 43.5% | Arkansas |
| Explosiveness | 1.12 | 1.27 | Vanderbilt |
| Havoc created | 11.7% | 9.6% | Arkansas |
- Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.
How to read this
- The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
- A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
Arkansas players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.
Passing
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| KJ Jackson QB | 100% | +12.1 | +0.39 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cam Settles RB | 27% | +2.5 | +0.23 |
| Braylen Russell RB | 34% | +2.1 | +0.15 |
| KJ Jackson QB | 27% | +2.1 | +0.19 |
| Sutton Smith RB | 10% | +1.7 | +0.43 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jamari Hawkins WR | 6% | +5.1 | +2.57 |
| Antonio Jordan WR | 23% | +2.7 | +0.39 |
| Monte Harrison WR | 6% | +2.5 | +1.26 |
| Chris Marshall WR | 6% | +2.3 | +1.16 |
By play type
| Measure | Arkansas | Vanderbilt | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.20 | +0.09 | Arkansas |
| Rushing success | 43.9% | 39.3% | Arkansas |
| Passing PPA | +0.39 | +0.29 | Arkansas |
| Passing success | 54.8% | 51.6% | Arkansas |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.34 | +0.39 | Vanderbilt |
| Standard downs success | 54.0% | 53.5% | Arkansas |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.11 | -0.54 | Arkansas |
| Passing downs success | 34.8% | 21.1% | Arkansas |
Havoc detail — Arkansas defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 2, breakups 2 on 60 snaps. Vanderbilt defense: TFL 2, sacks 0, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 73 snaps.
Drives
A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.
Recruiting
| Measure | Arkansas | Vanderbilt |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 46 | 33 |
| 2026 class points | 212.68 | 225.43 |
| Talent composite | 745.5 #36 of 138 |
727.4 #42 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 42 in, 43 out
Arrivals (42)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jahiem Johnson CB | Tulane | 4 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Khmori House LB | North Carolina | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Bryant Williams OT | Louisiana | 4 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Christian Harrison S | Cincinnati | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Malachi Breland IOL | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Jamari Hawkins WR | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| AJ Hill QB | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Ja'Quavion Smith LB | Howard | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Sutton Smith RB | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jasper Parker RB | Michigan | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
+32 more not shown (42 total).
Departures (43)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ian Geffrard DL | Texas | 4 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| E'Marion Harris OT | Oklahoma | 4 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Keyshawn Blackstock IOL | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| AJ Green RB | Western Michigan | 4 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Selman Bridges CB | Nevada | 4 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Andy Jean WR | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 31, 2025 |
| Danny Saili DL | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 2, 2026 |
| Tavion Wallace LB | Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Justus Boone EDGE | Wisconsin | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Blake Cherry OT | Wisconsin | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
+33 more not shown (43 total).
2026 commits · 20
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danny Beale III DL | Cherry Valley, AR | 4 | 0.9307 |
| TJ Hodges RB | Bryant, AR | 4 | 0.8967 |
| Hank Hendrix QB | FAYETTEVILLE, AR | 4 | 0.8911 |
| Anthony Kennedy Jr. DL | Little Rock, AR | 3 | 0.8900 |
| Colton Yarbrough EDGE | Durant, OK | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Dequane Prevo WR | Bentonville, AR | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Jakore Smith LB | Bryant, AR | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Jalon Copeland CB | Valdosta, GA | 3 | 0.8733 |
| Tay Lockett S | Conway, AR | 3 | 0.8722 |
| Jude Hall WR | Greenville, SC | 3 | 0.8700 |
| Kyndrick Williams S | Fayetteville, AR | 3 | 0.8700 |
| Ben Mubenga OT | Buford, GA | 3 | 0.8667 |
| Brandon Ford CB | Crowley, TX | 3 | 0.8667 |
| Tucker Young OT | Hot Springs, AR | 3 | 0.8667 |
| Hugh Smith IOL | Missouri City, TX | 3 | 0.8611 |
+5 more not shown (20 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Arkansas in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 14.5% | 65.7 | 19.6% |
| Passing | 18.7% | 25.0 | 13.6% |
| Receiving | 11.7% | 24.7 | 27.2% |
| Rushing | 14.5% | 15.9 | 18.9% |
A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.