Cincinnati

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+0.2884th
  Defense+0.1526th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%65th
  Defense45.2%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3584th
  Defense+1.1864th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2791st
  Defense+0.1522nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3064th
  Defense+0.2730th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%69th
  Defense48.4%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%57th
  Defense37.9%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4583rd
  Defense3.3510th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.1%78th
  Defense17.3%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.7%82nd
  Defense16.0%53rd

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 Cincinnati 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
   BC
2. W
   WCU
3. W
   M-OH
4. W
   KSU
5. L
   ARIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2026

1. JC French IVQB128 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 84th of 192 QBs
   0.23WAR0.02 to 0.44
2. Gi'Bran PayneRB52 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 85th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
3. Cole TabbRB31 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 143rd of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
4. JV GibsonWR17 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Isaiah JohnsonWR17 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
6. Max FletcherP13 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 28th of 84 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
7. Gavin GroverTE10 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Zylan PerryRB10 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 250th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 Cincinnati'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.
  63463477th of 138Roster talent: 634, 77th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918964th of 138Recruiting: 189, 64th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%121st of 136Returning production: 8%, 121st 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.
  +5.3+5.355th of 138SP+ rating so far: +5.3, 55th 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 Cincinnati'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. vs M-OHQ2 12:12 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
2. vs M-OHQ2 0:01 4th & 5 at CIN 39, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
3. at ARIZQ1 0:01 4th & 3 at CIN 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs BCQ1 3:08 4th & 2 at CIN 13, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs M-OHQ3 13:28 4th & 3 at CIN 33, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs BCQ2 14:17 4th & 5 at CIN 39, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs BCQ2 3:46 4th & 3 at CIN 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs WCUQ4 7:26 4th & 10 at WCU 18, up 45Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

15th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Cincinnati's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   BC
2. W

   WCU
3. W

   M-OH
4. W

   KSU
5. L

   ARIZ

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Cincinnati'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+0.56
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• BCW 34-15 vs BC68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• WCUW 62-10 vs WCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• M-OHW 35-31 vs M-OH83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• KSUW 31-26 vs KSU29% → 89%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +4
• ARIZL 7-34 at ARIZ25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28

Points of win probability, from Cincinnati's side.

Closest call

CIN 21-17 M-OH (2017) - Cincinnati dropped to a 4.8% win probability before pulling it out.