Ole Miss

2-0AP #8

SEC · Pete Golding, year 2 (4-1) · Vaught-Hemingway Stadium · 64,038 · 68,134 avg in 2026

The nationAP #8 · Coaches #9up 1 from last week
The model#13 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #20 (+13.3) · FPI #17
The marketLSU by 3vs LSU · our model 62% Ole Miss · a number, not a pick

LastW 41–9 vs Charlotte · Sat Sep 12 · Kewan Lacy 87 rush yds, 2 TD

Nextvs LSU · Sat Sep 19 · 7:30 pm ET · Vaught-Hemingway Stadium · LSU by 3 · series 41-64-4 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
41.0
Pts allowed/game
23.5
Total yards/gm#45 / 138 · 68th pct
454.0
Rush yards/gm#97 / 138 · 30th pct
139.5
Pass yards/gm#28 / 138 · 80th pct
314.5
Yards allowed/gm#103 / 138 · 26th pct
395.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#98 / 138 · 29th pct
152.5
SacksT-#60 / 138 · 50th pct
4
InterceptionsT-#63 / 115 · 23rd pct
1
3rd-down convT-#94 / 138 · 32nd pct
35.0%
All 92 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
908454.0/gm6.68/play#45 / 138 · 68th pct#30 / 69 · 57th pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
791395.5/gm6.13/play#103 / 138 · 26th pct#62 / 69 · 11th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
279139.5/gm2.05/play#97 / 138 · 30th pct#50 / 69 · 28th pct#13 / 16 · 22nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
305152.5/gm2.36/play#98 / 138 · 29th pct#61 / 69 · 12th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
6532.5/gmT-#104 / 138 · 23rd pctT-#53 / 69 · 22nd pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
7236.0/gmT-#84 / 138 · 38th pctT-#50 / 69 · 28th pctT-#14 / 16 · 12th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
52.5/gmT-#35 / 138 · 70th pctT-#23 / 69 · 60th pctT-#8 / 16 · 44th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 50th pctT-#34 / 69 · 36th pctT-#9 / 16 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
629314.5/gm4.62/play#28 / 138 · 80th pct#17 / 69 · 76th pct#6 / 16 · 66th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
486243.0/gm3.77/play#103 / 138 · 26th pct#57 / 69 · 18th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
7135.5/gmT-#34 / 138 · 75th pctT-#15 / 69 · 78th pctT-#3 / 16 · 81st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5728.5/gmT-#56 / 138 · 58th pctT-#34 / 69 · 50th pctT-#8 / 16 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
4824.0/gmT-#31 / 138 · 76th pctT-#15 / 69 · 78th pct#3 / 16 · 84th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3819.0/gmT-#73 / 138 · 45th pctT-#44 / 69 · 36th pct#12 / 16 · 28th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
52.5/gmT-#33 / 138 · 71st pctT-#24 / 69 · 60th pctT-#7 / 16 · 53rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 57th pctT-#29 / 69 · 46th pctT-#9 / 16 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating
Team
162.4162.4#33 / 115 · 72nd pct#24 / 59 · 60th pct#5 / 14 · 68th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct
Opp
142.8142.8#68 / 91 · 26th pct#37 / 41 · 11th pct#11 / 11 · 5th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Interceptions thrown
Team
21.0/gmT-#23 / 138 · 74th pctT-#8 / 69 · 78th pctT-#3 / 16 · 72nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#24 / 138 · 64th pctT-#11 / 69 · 64th pctT-#3 / 16 · 78th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
42.0/gmT-#60 / 138 · 50th pctT-#36 / 69 · 40th pctT-#11 / 16 · 25th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#9 / 138 · 86th pctT-#6 / 69 · 83rd pctT-#2 / 16 · 81st pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
147.0/gmT-#29 / 138 · 73rd pctT-#18 / 69 · 68th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
84.0/gmT-#39 / 138 · 67th pctT-#26 / 69 · 57th pctT-#5 / 16 · 66th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4924.5/gmT-#39 / 138 · 70th pctT-#25 / 69 · 61st pctT-#10 / 16 · 31st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3718.5/gmT-#73 / 138 · 45th pctT-#48 / 69 · 28th pctT-#13 / 16 · 19th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
73.5/gmT-#117 / 138 · 13th pctT-#63 / 69 · 7th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
105.0/gmT-#66 / 138 · 48th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pct#10 / 16 · 41st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2010.0/gmT-#123 / 138 · 10th pctT-#62 / 69 · 10th pct#14 / 16 · 16th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3015.0/gmT-#89 / 138 · 31st pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pctT-#12 / 16 · 25th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
10.5/gmT-#85 / 138 · 29th pctT-#44 / 69 · 32nd pct#14 / 16 · 16th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#26 / 138 · 66th pctT-#15 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#3 / 16 · 69th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
21.0/gmT-#98 / 138 · 22nd pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pctT-#11 / 16 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#20 / 138 · 74th pctT-#10 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#2 / 16 · 81st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
51:4825:54/gm#127 / 138 · 8th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
68:1234:06/gm#118 / 138 · 15th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.54 EPA/play6244 / 6271.0561
#29 FBS
9.05
#22 FBS
1170.46373.69.71.6
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
+0.33 EPA/play5230148
#66 FBS
4.93
#11 FBS
28
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
Deep Threat · +1.23 EPA/play1213235
#15 FBS
18.12
#24 FBS
62
+0.90 EPA/play112911312.6131
+0.34 EPA/play3166510.8016

2026 stat leaders · Ole Miss

through 2 games

Deuce Alexander leads Ole Miss with 235 receiving yards through 2 games.

1. Deuce Alexander WR 235 receiving yards
2. Trinidad Chambliss QB 561 passing yards
3. Tah'j Butler LB 12 tackles
4. Keaton Thomas LB 12 tackles
5. Jaylon Braxton CB 11 tackles
How They Play · 2025

Ole Miss fields an elite offense behind a strong defense.

Offense
92nd pct EPA/play
Defense
72nd pct EPA allowed

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Ole Miss · 2025

Ole Miss reads strongest in passing epa (top 7%) and epa / play (top 8%); the crux lives in rushing epa allowed, where Ole Miss sits at the 19th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.31
92nd
Success Rate +0.48
92nd
Explosive Plays +1.30
69th
Rushing EPA +0.17
75th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.09
72nd
Success Rate Allowed +0.38
78th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.31
29th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.10
89th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.47
94th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.15
19th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 15 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Ole Miss · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Ole Miss is worth +5.1 points more at home than on the road.

Middle of FBS, 67th percentile of 133 programs

74% at home, 47% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (37–13 home, 17–19 away). Interval ±4.2.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Ole Miss has beaten the number by +0.8 more at home than away over 73 games — inside the ±6.3 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Vaught-Hemingway Stadium seats 64,038 and has averaged 102% full (65,287, 30 games reported). Visitors cover a median 289 miles to get here since 2018 — 31st-shortest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. 16% of the 2026 roster (19 of 116 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 57 home games since 2018.

Home37–13Away17–19Edge+5.1 ±4.2Visitor trip289 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

Ole Miss's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 92nd percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 87th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 92nd pctileCompetitive sn…Worst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · CFBD play-by-play, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Ole Miss hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

94th percentile success on standard downs, 50th on passing downs — a 44-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantOle MissWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th
Pass defense by zoneThe part of the field opponents keep attacking.

Pass-depth identity

What this team throws, and gives up, by depth.

On short throws (≤19 air yards), Ole Miss’s passing game completes a completion rate above the FBS mean (69.0% vs 68.3% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 63-play sample) — mid-pack, 24 of 41 qualifying offenses.

We won’t show a deep-ball (20+ air yards) leaderboard here, on either side of the ball: even a full season of charted plays gives most teams well under 30 deep attempts — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess. Same refusal for yards-after-catch allowed and where a team’s attempts land by zone: both measured and both came back statistically indistinguishable from season-to-season noise.

Screened 59 claims, 59 survived · 2025+ only, charted plays (parse_status='complete'); n=63 short-zone plays, raw rate 69.8%
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Ole Miss

CFB Zeitgeist

#13

+8.1

SP+

#20

+13.3

FPI

#17

+15.5

Elo

#11

1851

The national models put Ole Miss between 11th and 20th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist agrees, slotting them 13th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Ole Miss

Reads like

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way -- then what happened.

Historical echo

Ole Miss’s breakout has happened before — and 1 of the 4 closest programs couldn’t hold it.

Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.

TCU 2006–2011
fell back
Oklahoma 1946–1951
kept climbing
Nebraska 1991–1996
held the gain
Texas 1959–1964
held the gain

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

70°F average kickoff temp; 6% of games had measurable precipitation; 6 mph average wind.

Based on 85 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site