Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1457th
  Defense+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%46th
  Defense39.8%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1841st
  Defense+1.1766th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1580th
  Defense+0.0164th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1433rd
  Defense+0.0776th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%60th
  Defense46.2%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%31st
  Defense28.7%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0569th
  Defense2.6974th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%67th
  Defense21.7%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%75th
  Defense21.6%71st

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, 2019

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. L
   OSU
3. W
   M-OH
4. W
   MRSH
5. W
   UCF
6. W
   HOU
7. W
   TLSA
8. W
   ECU
9. W
   CONN
10. W
    USF
11. W
    TEM
12. L
    MEM
13. L
    MEM
14. W
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2019

1. Desmond RidderQB408 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 48th of 228 QBs
   1.41WAR0.72 to 2.04
2. Michael Warren IIRB261 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 3rd of 349 RBs
   1.03WAR0.83 to 1.24
3. Gerrid DoaksRB87 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 164th of 349 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
4. James SmithP58 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 2nd of 100 punters
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
5. Alec PierceWR54 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 105th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
6. Sam CrosaPK17 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 54th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Rashad MedarisWR41 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 202nd of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Jayshon JacksonWR24 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 344th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57757761st of 130Roster talent: 577, 61st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816868th of 130Recruiting: 168, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%16th of 130Returning production: 82%, 16th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.1+9.134th of 130SP+ rating: +9.1, 34th 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, 2019

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 0.02 of the 0.06 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 HOUQ4 4:27 4th & 3 at HOU 15, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at HOUQ3 12:40 4th & 7 at HOU 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at MRSHQ1 2:53 4th & 17 at MRSH 17, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at HOUQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at CIN 10, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at OSUQ2 11:29 4th & 2 at OSU 14, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at USFQ2 15:00 4th & 7 at USF 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at MEMQ4 1:35 4th & 16 at CIN 19, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UCFQ4 4:01 4th & 9 at UCF 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

11th 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. L

   OSU
3. W

   M-OH
4. W

   MRSH
5. W

   UCF
6. W

   HOU
7. W

   TLSA
8. W

   ECU
9. W

   CONN
10. W

    USF
11. W

    TEM
12. L

    MEM
13. L

    MEM
14. W

    BC

What moved it, 2019

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+2.19
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.44

Game by game

• UCLAW 24-14 vs UCLA58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• OSUL 0-42 at OSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −19
• M-OHW 35-13 vs M-OH89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• MRSHW 52-14 at MRSH61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43
• UCFW 27-24 vs UCF38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• HOUW 38-23 at HOU73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• TLSAW 24-13 vs TLSA86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 46-43 at ECU93% → 95%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• CONNW 48-3 vs CONN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• USFW 20-17 at USF81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• TEMW 15-13 vs TEM76% → 84%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −2
• MEML 24-34 at MEM18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22
• MEML 24-29 at MEM27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −3
• BCW 38-6 vs BC70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1

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.