Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0945th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%22nd
  Defense43.7%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2365th
  Defense+1.2340th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0757th
  Defense+0.0937th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1242nd
  Defense+0.349th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%12th
  Defense47.1%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%48th
  Defense36.1%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9355th
  Defense2.7364th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%43rd
  Defense20.7%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%53rd
  Defense12.5%6th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   APSU
2. L
   MICH
3. W
   M-OH
4. L
   NAVY
5. L
   MRSH
6. L
   UCF
7. L
   USF
8. L
   SMU
9. W
   TULN
10. L
    TEM
11. L
    ECU
12. W
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2017

1. Hayden MooreQB394 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 74th of 226 QBs
   1.04WAR0.28 to 1.81
2. Gerrid DoaksRB100 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 105th of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.36
3. Kahlil LewisWR87 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 60th of 426 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
4. Mike BooneRB97 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 223rd of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
5. Thomas GeddisWR41 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Devin GrayWR38 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. James SmithP48 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 28th of 95 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
8. Josh PasleyPK6 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 101st of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50150172nd of 130Roster talent: 501, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16116169th of 130Recruiting: 161, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%34th of 128Returning production: 73%, 34th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.4−6.495th of 128SP+ rating: −6.4, 95th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.09 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 CONNQ2 5:17 4th & 1 at CIN 41, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs SMUQ2 6:17 4th & 3 at SMU 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs APSUQ4 11:41 4th & 3 at APSU 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at MICHQ3 0:53 4th & 1 at CIN 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs SMUQ4 2:22 4th & 3 at SMU 21, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TEMQ2 13:15 4th & 1 at CIN 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at M-OHQ2 8:12 4th & 2 at CIN 18, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at MICHQ3 7:42 4th & 3 at CIN 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

105th of 130 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

   APSU
2. L

   MICH
3. W

   M-OH
4. L

   NAVY
5. L

   MRSH
6. L

   UCF
7. L

   USF
8. L

   SMU
9. W

   TULN
10. L

    TEM
11. L

    ECU
12. W

    CONN

What moved it, 2017

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−1.58
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• APSUW 26-14 vs APSU99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +4
• MICHL 14-36 at MICH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• M-OHW 21-17 at M-OH39% → 94%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• NAVYL 32-42 at NAVY33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• MRSHL 21-38 vs MRSH61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• UCFL 23-51 vs UCF16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23
• USFL 3-33 at USF7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −12
• SMUL 28-31 vs SMU34% → 38%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −20
• TULNW 17-16 at TULN42% → 83%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• TEML 24-35 vs TEM47% → 5%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• ECUL 20-48 at ECU66% → 0%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −57
• CONNW 22-21 vs CONN69% → 64%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +5, Possession & field position −4

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.