Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1671st
  Defense+0.1431st
• 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.
  Offense49.1%90th
  Defense42.9%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2156th
  Defense+1.1566th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0753rd
  Defense+0.1126th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2469th
  Defense+0.1741st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.6%93rd
  Defense47.6%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.2%85th
  Defense32.8%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8345th
  Defense3.1613th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%82nd
  Defense15.3%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%16th
  Defense2.0%54th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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
   AAMU
2. L
   TEM
3. W
   M-OH
4. L
   MEM
5. W
   MIA
6. L
   BYU
7. W
   CONN
8. W
   UCF
9. L
   HOU
10. W
    TLSA
11. L
    USF
12. W
    ECU
13. L
    SDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2015

1. Gunner KielQB314 plays · +0.317 pts/play · 36th of 205 QBs
   1.87WAR1.31 to 2.41
2. Hayden MooreQB213 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 111th of 205 QBs
   0.69WAR0.32 to 1.07
3. Mike BooneRB90 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 81st of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.35
4. Shaq WashingtonWR103 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 35th of 411 WRs
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.42
5. Chris MooreWR57 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 69th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.31
6. Max MorrisonWR59 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 71st of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
7. Andrew GantzPK22 plays · +0.463 pts/play · 12th of 115 kickers
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
8. Tion GreenRB126 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 134th of 333 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49549571st of 128Roster talent: 495, 71st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216267th of 128Recruiting: 162, 67th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%10th of 127Returning production: 90%, 10th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.3+5.355th of 128SP+ rating: +5.3, 55th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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. at M-OHQ4 10:59 4th & 3 at CIN 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs TLSAQ3 14:53 4th & 1 at CIN 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at BYUQ2 2:31 4th & 2 at BYU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at HOUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at CIN 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs CONNQ4 6:08 4th & 2 at CONN 9, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs SDSUQ3 13:06 4th & 2 at CIN 38, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs SDSUQ2 0:24 4th & 27 at SDSU 43, down 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs AAMUQ1 5:47 4th & 2 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

107th of 128 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

   AAMU
2. L

   TEM
3. W

   M-OH
4. L

   MEM
5. W

   MIA
6. L

   BYU
7. W

   CONN
8. W

   UCF
9. L

   HOU
10. W

    TLSA
11. L

    USF
12. W

    ECU
13. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.94
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.46

Game by game

• AAMUW 52-10 vs AAMU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30
• TEML 26-34 vs TEM72% → 4%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• M-OHW 37-33 at M-OH92% → 96%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• MEML 46-53 at MEM41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +1
• MIAW 34-23 vs MIA37% → 97%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• BYUL 24-38 at BYU36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 37-13 vs CONN86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• UCFW 52-7 vs UCF92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• HOUL 30-33 at HOU31% → 5%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TLSAW 49-38 vs TLSA86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• USFL 27-65 at USF63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 19-16 at ECU69% → 94%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• SDSUL 7-42 vs SDSU60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −58, Clock −2

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.