Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2179th
  Defense−0.0899th
• 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.
  Offense46.2%77th
  Defense34.2%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3068th
  Defense+1.2645th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0852nd
  Defense0.0067th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3689th
  Defense−0.1498th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%68th
  Defense39.0%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.2%87th
  Defense25.2%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8851st
  Defense2.5782nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%38th
  Defense21.0%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%58th
  Defense19.7%92nd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. W
   ARMY
3. W
   USF
4. W
   SMU
5. W
   MEM
6. W
   HOU
7. W
   ECU
8. W
   UCF
9. W
   TLSA
10. L
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2020

1. Desmond RidderQB309 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 30th of 212 QBs
   0.87WAR0.30 to 1.44
2. Gerrid DoaksRB130 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 52nd of 338 RBs
   0.41WAR0.29 to 0.53
3. Jerome FordRB52 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 238th of 338 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
4. Michael YoungWR36 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 185th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Alec PierceWR22 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Jayshon JacksonWR32 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Josh WhyleTE25 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 35th of 191 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
8. Cole SmithPK9 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 66th of 97 kickers
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60160158th of 127Roster talent: 601, 58th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817860th of 127Recruiting: 178, 60th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%56th of 127Returning production: 67%, 56th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.6+18.69th of 127SP+ rating: +18.6, 9th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.24 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 UGAQ4 1:28 4th & 2 at UGA 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−11.3 pts
2. at UGAQ3 1:43 4th & 7 at UGA 28, down 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
3. at UGAQ4 8:59 4th & 15 at UGA 33, down 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
4. at UGAQ2 14:02 4th & 14 at UGA 21, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
5. vs ARMYQ4 0:25 4th & 13 at CIN 18, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at UCFQ3 0:12 4th & 7 at UCF 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MEMQ2 9:32 4th & 2 at CIN 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UCFQ1 1:00 4th & 5 at UCF 40, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

13th of 127 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. W

   ARMY
3. W

   USF
4. W

   SMU
5. W

   MEM
6. W

   HOU
7. W

   ECU
8. W

   UCF
9. W

   TLSA
10. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2020

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+1.91
• Clock+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• APSUW 55-20 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ARMYW 24-10 vs ARMY82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23
• USFW 28-7 vs USF93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• SMUW 42-13 at SMU49% → 100%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +53, Possession & field position +1
• MEMW 49-10 vs MEM69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33
• HOUW 38-10 vs HOU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• ECUW 55-17 vs ECU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• UCFW 36-33 at UCF61% → 94%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• TLSAW 27-24 vs TLSA82% → 94%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −1
• UGAL 21-24 at UGA26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27

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.