The SportsWire

Ole Miss

2026 · week 6 result vs Vanderbilt

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Missouri

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Vaught-Hemingway Stadium (Oxford) · Missouri (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Ole Miss by 2.4Toss-up

All three models favor Ole Miss. The line, shown for comparison only, has Ole Miss by 6.0.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: vs Missouri ›

Regression watch: Last game's 35-point win matched the play (score +4 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 9th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +4.5); 33rd-toughest remaining (+8.0). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
  • Week 1 vs Louisville (+9.8)
  • Week 2 vs Charlotte (-21.2)
  • Week 3 vs LSU (+18.5)
  • Week 4 at Florida (+11.8)
  • Week 6 at Vanderbilt (+3.7)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Missouri (+13.9)
  • Week 8 at Texas (+18.1)
  • Week 9 vs Auburn (+8.2)
  • Week 10 vs Georgia (+23.4)
  • Week 11 at Oklahoma (+14.7)
  • Week 12 vs Wofford (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 13 vs Mississippi State (+10.7)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Missouri leads 7–1 · last: Missouri 38–27, 2019 · Missouri has won 6 straight

Series history 8 meetings since 1973
  • All-time: Missouri leads 7–1 (8 meetings since 1973)
  • Last meeting: Missouri 38–27, 2019, Memorial Stadium
  • Streak: Missouri has won 6 straight
  • At Vaught-Hemingway Stadium: Missouri leads 2–0 (2 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Ole Miss 10–0 (1974) · Missouri 45–14 (1978)
  • Since 2000: Missouri leads 4–0 (4 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2019Missouri 38–27Memorial Stadium
2013Missouri 24–10Vaught-Hemingway Stadium
2007Missouri 38–25Vaught-Hemingway Stadium
2006Missouri 34–7Memorial Stadium
RatingOle MissMissouri
SP+ +15.9 #16 +18.0 #13
Elo 1868 1814

Projected margin for Ole Miss · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
+0.4
Ole Miss +15.9 vs Missouri +18.0
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+4.7
Ole Miss 1868 vs Missouri 1814
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+6.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+2.2
Ole Miss +13.6 vs Missouri +13.9
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
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 Ole Miss'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.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Ole Miss); 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, above the cards, 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 · Ole Miss 5 games, Missouri 6 games

Edge: Missouri wins 3 of 5

Missouri stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Ole Miss moves the ball better and allows fewer big plays.

Ole Misslonger bar = betterMissouri

Run game, head to head · season to date

Ole Miss's runs work 52% of the time; Missouri's run defense allows 32%. Missouri's runs work 39% of the time; Ole Miss's run defense allows 47%.

More numbers
MeasureOle MissMissouriEdge
Off. success rate52.3%42.9%Ole Miss
Off. explosiveness1.161.26Missouri
Def. success rate allowed46.7%32.9%Missouri
Def. explosiveness allowed1.201.38Ole Miss
Havoc created16.0%21.9%Missouri
  • Run game, success rate: Ole Miss offense 51.6% · Missouri defense allows 31.8% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Missouri offense 38.8% · Ole Miss defense allows 46.9% · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Ole Miss offense +0.13 · Missouri defense allows -0.12 · edge: Missouri
  • Run game, PPA per play: Missouri offense +0.05 · Ole Miss defense allows +0.17 · 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 ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 16

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

4 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Ole Miss 52, Vanderbilt 17W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +0.5 ✓ · Our model +2.9 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +35 · Closest: Our model

Ole Miss was as low as 38% and won Ole Miss was as low as 38% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 52–17
  1. Q4 0:39 · 1st & 10 · 66% → 96%
    (00:39) No Huddle-Shotgun #33 S.Mills-Knight rush middle for 3 yards gain to the OM28 (#99 T.Carter)
  2. Q1 7:08 · 1st & 10 · 49% → 65%
    (07:08) Shotgun #6 T.Chambliss pass complete short right to #7 T.Ray caught at OM22, for 2 yards to the OM27 (#25 M.Lewis; #11 B.Longwell)
  3. Q1 10:41 · 1st & 10 · 57% → 73%
    (10:41) No Huddle-Shotgun #6 T.Chambliss rush middle for 10 yards gain to the Vandy00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:37, 1ST DOWN #17 L.Carneiro kick attempt good (H: #33 O.Bird, LS: #50 C.Blankenship)

Away at FirstBank Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · vs Vanderbilt (FBS, SEC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Vanderbilt (FBS, SEC).

Verdict

The 35-point win matched the play: Ole Miss's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.33 vs -0.11, success rate 56% vs 39%) implies roughly a +31 margin.

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: Ole Miss won 3 of 4

Ole Miss moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Vanderbilt hit the bigger plays.

Ole Misslonger bar = betterVanderbilt
More numbers

Ole Miss ran 66 plays, Vanderbilt 75. Each number is that team's offense; Vanderbilt's column is also what Ole Miss's defense allowed.

MeasureOle MissVanderbiltEdge
PPA / play+0.33-0.11Ole Miss
Total PPA+22.0-8.6Ole Miss
Success rate56.1%38.7%Ole Miss
Explosiveness1.021.28Vanderbilt
Havoc created19.2%12.1%Ole Miss
  • 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

Ole Miss 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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Trinidad Chambliss QB 96% +14.8 +0.67

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Makhi Frazier RB 42% +1.9 +0.24
Trinidad Chambliss QB 16% +1.6 +0.54
Kewan Lacy RB 37% +0.9 +0.13

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Deuce Alexander WR 26% +5.1 +0.84
Caleb Cunningham WR 9% +3.1 +1.56
Michael Smith TE 4% +2.3 +2.33
Johntay Cook II WR 9% +1.5 +0.75
By play type
MeasureOle MissVanderbiltEdge
Rushing PPA+0.26-0.12Ole Miss
Rushing success58.8%41.2%Ole Miss
Passing PPA+0.55+0.11Ole Miss
Passing success53.3%39.5%Ole Miss
Standard downs PPA+0.28-0.43Ole Miss
Standard downs success62.5%37.5%Ole Miss
Passing downs PPA+0.46+0.44Ole Miss
Passing downs success38.9%40.7%Vanderbilt

Havoc detail — Ole Miss defense: TFL 3, sacks 2, takeaways 2, breakups 7 on 73 snaps. Vanderbilt defense: TFL 1, sacks 1, takeaways 2, breakups 4 on 66 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.

◀ Ole MissVanderbilt ▶
  • 13Drives13
  • 10Scoring opportunities8
  • 3.8Points per opportunity2.1
  • own 31Avg. starting field positionown 25
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.71 points a play (Ole Miss +0.71 in the first half, +0.00 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

Ole MissVanderbilt
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.51+0.01-0.20+0.01
Success rate62%43%30%48%
Plays42233340

Recruiting

Ole Miss's 2026 class: #22 · 236.72 points.

MeasureOle MissVanderbilt
Talent composite 885.7
#14 of 138
727.4
#42 of 138
Transfer portal · 28 in, 27 out

Arrivals (28)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Jay Crawford CB Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Michai Boireau DL Florida 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Carius Curne OT LSU 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Edwin Joseph S Florida State 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Deuce Knight QB Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Darrell Gill Jr. WR Syracuse 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Jordan Renaud EDGE Alabama 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Blake Purchase EDGE Oregon 4 Immediate Jan 16, 2026
Luke Ferrelli LB California 4 Immediate Jan 21, 2026
Horatio Fields WR Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 29, 2026

+18 more not shown (28 total).

Departures (27)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Princewill Umanmielen EDGE LSU 5 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Austin Simmons QB Missouri 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Winston Watkins WR LSU 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
TJ Dottery LB LSU 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Da'Shawn Womack EDGE Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Devin Harper IOL LSU 4 Immediate Jan 16, 2026
Cayden Lee WR Missouri 4 Immediate Jan 17, 2026
Zxavian Harris DL LSU 4 Immediate Aug 19, 2026
Dae'Quan Wright TE LSU 4 Immediate Aug 20, 2026
PJ Wilkins IOL Wisconsin 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+17 more not shown (27 total).

2026 commits · 22
PlayerHometown★Rating
Landon Barnes EDGE Duncanville, TX 4 0.9574
Jase Mathews WR Leakesville, MS 4 0.9527
Damarius Yates RB De Kalb, MS 4 0.9422
Craig Tutt S Murfreesboro, TN 4 0.9068
Dorian Barney CB Carrollton, GA 4 0.9009
Emanuel Tucker OT New Albany, MS 4 0.8978
Carmelow Reed DL Chicago, IL 4 0.8969
Iverson McCoy S Tupelo, MS 4 0.8922
Ant Davis LB Loganville, GA 3 0.8867
Ja'Michael Garrett LB Baton Rouge, LA 3 0.8833
Jayden Curtis DL Ocean Springs, MS 3 0.8822
Kervin Johnson Jr. WR Tioga, LA 3 0.8822
Nascar McCoy S Buford, GA 3 0.8800
Victor Lincoln Jr. CB Lancaster, TX 3 0.8767
Ja'Michael Jones RB Montgomery, AL 3 0.8756

+7 more not shown (22 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Ole Miss in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall50.3%279.467.9%
Passing79.1%167.485.3%
Receiving19.4%53.129.0%
Rushing83.8%58.983.9%

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.