Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2083rd
  Defense−0.0492nd
• 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.
  Offense44.4%60th
  Defense34.7%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3087th
  Defense+1.2050th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense−0.0893rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2877th
  Defense0.0087th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%31st
  Defense41.9%89th
• 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%86th
  Defense23.8%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1177th
  Defense2.5484th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%68th
  Defense20.8%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.6%89th
  Defense19.4%88th

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, 2018

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
   UCLA
2. W
   M-OH
3. W
   AAMU
4. W
   OHIO
5. W
   CONN
6. W
   TULN
7. L
   TEM
8. W
   SMU
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    USF
11. L
    UCF
12. W
    ECU
13. W
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2018

1. Desmond RidderQB400 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 53rd of 225 QBs
   1.47WAR0.80 to 2.11
2. Michael Warren IIRB253 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 3rd of 351 RBs
   1.04WAR0.83 to 1.23
3. James SmithP50 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 4th of 91 punters
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
4. Hayden MooreQB38 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 204th of 225 QBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Kahlil LewisWR65 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 180th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.19
6. Rashad MedarisWR37 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Thomas GeddisWR26 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 315th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Josiah DeguaraTE53 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 67th of 204 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.12

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54454464th of 130Roster talent: 544, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916964th of 130Recruiting: 169, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%28th of 129Returning production: 79%, 28th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.4+5.449th of 130SP+ rating: +5.4, 49th of 130 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, 2018

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 VTQ3 6:05 4th & 1 at CIN 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at UCLAQ3 10:32 4th & 1 at CIN 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at UCLAQ3 3:51 4th & 4 at UCLA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at M-OHQ3 9:47 4th & 2 at CIN 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at M-OHQ2 9:22 4th & 1 at CIN 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 12:22 4th & 13 at M-OH 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at VTQ4 6:44 4th & 8 at VT 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at SMUQ3 6:37 4th & 4 at SMU 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

7th 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

   UCLA
2. W

   M-OH
3. W

   AAMU
4. W

   OHIO
5. W

   CONN
6. W

   TULN
7. L

   TEM
8. W

   SMU
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    USF
11. L

    UCF
12. W

    ECU
13. W

    VT

What moved it, 2018

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+2.65
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.38
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• UCLAW 26-17 at UCLA19% → 95%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• M-OHW 21-0 at M-OH50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• AAMUW 63-7 vs AAMU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• OHIOW 34-30 vs OHIO74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 49-7 at CONN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• TULNW 37-21 vs TULN70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +1
• TEML 17-24 at TEM48% → 11%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +19
• SMUW 26-20 at SMU75% → 78%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +16
• NAVYW 42-0 vs NAVY82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• USFW 35-23 vs USF86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 13-38 at UCF31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• ECUW 56-6 vs ECU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• VTW 35-31 at VT62% → 93%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3

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.