Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.0863rd
• 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.
  Offense40.4%20th
  Defense44.6%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1427th
  Defense+1.0597th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.112nd
  Defense+0.0656th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1033rd
  Defense+0.1552nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%21st
  Defense48.1%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%32nd
  Defense36.4%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9041st
  Defense3.0635th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%24th
  Defense18.6%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%39th
  Defense14.8%24th

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2016

1. Hayden MooreQB236 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 110th of 218 QBs
   0.68WAR0.31 to 1.08
2. Gunner KielQB97 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 133rd of 218 QBs
   0.46WAR0.29 to 0.63
3. Mike BooneRB110 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 103rd of 347 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.45
4. Tion GreenRB157 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 116th of 347 RBs
   0.32WAR0.19 to 0.44
5. Ross TrailQB87 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 152nd of 218 QBs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.40
6. Devin GrayWR79 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 64th of 417 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.32
7. Kahlil LewisWR70 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
8. Sam GeraciP53 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 29th of 82 punters
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54254258th of 128Roster talent: 542, 58th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915970th of 128Recruiting: 159, 70th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%99th of 128Returning production: 51%, 99th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.6−3.682nd of 128SP+ rating: −3.6, 82nd 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, 2016

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.23 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 TLSAQ4 3:07 4th & 2 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.9 pts
2. at CONNQ4 13:26 4th & 4 at CONN 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at CONNQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at CONN 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at TLSAQ4 14:49 4th & 2 at CIN 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs M-OHQ4 0:14 4th & 11 at M-OH 20, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. vs USFQ2 0:36 4th & 19 at USF 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. at PURQ3 4:42 4th & 2 at CIN 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs ECUQ3 9:41 4th & 3 at ECU 24, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

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

   UTM
2. W

   PUR
3. L

   HOU
4. W

   M-OH
5. L

   USF
6. L

   CONN
7. W

   ECU
8. L

   TEM
9. L

   BYU
10. L

    UCF
11. L

    MEM
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2016

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−1.59
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• UTMW 28-7 vs UTM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• PURW 38-20 at PUR67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• HOUL 16-40 vs HOU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• M-OHW 27-20 vs M-OH88% → 93%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• USFL 20-45 vs USF31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• CONNL 9-20 at CONN55% → 3%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• ECUW 31-19 vs ECU57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• TEML 13-34 at TEM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29
• BYUL 3-20 vs BYU25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UCFL 3-24 at UCF22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25
• MEML 7-34 vs MEM33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −39
• TLSAL 37-40 at TLSA12% → 14%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +13

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.