Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2583rd
  Defense−0.0598th
• 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.
  Offense48.4%88th
  Defense38.1%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2436th
  Defense+1.1787th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2692nd
  Defense+0.0188th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2561st
  Defense−0.1199th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.1%95th
  Defense45.4%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%16th
  Defense24.8%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1560th
  Defense2.8669th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%41st
  Defense19.3%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%89th
  Defense20.3%95th

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, 2021

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
   M-OH
2. W
   MUR
3. W
   IU
4. W
   ND
5. W
   TEM
6. W
   UCF
7. W
   NAVY
8. W
   TULN
9. W
   TLSA
10. W
    USF
11. W
    SMU
12. W
    ECU
13. W
    HOU
14. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2021

1. Desmond RidderQB354 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 44th of 219 QBs
   1.79WAR1.08 to 2.54
2. Jerome FordRB145 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 92nd of 387 RBs
   0.42WAR0.24 to 0.60
3. Alec PierceWR59 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 52nd of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
4. Tyler ScottWR30 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 234th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. Tre TuckerWR29 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 299th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
6. Michael YoungWR29 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 299th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Cole SmithPK7 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 118th of 128 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Ryan MontgomeryRB6 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 342nd of 387 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62762752nd of 130Roster talent: 627, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418454th of 130Recruiting: 184, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%39th of 128Returning production: 86%, 39th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +21.2+21.25th of 130SP+ rating: +21.2, 5th 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 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 USFQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at USF 9, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at ALAQ2 0:00 4th & 14 at CIN 49, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at NAVYQ4 12:01 4th & 1 at CIN 16, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at TULNQ3 11:43 4th & 7 at TULN 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at NDQ4 11:28 4th & 4 at ND 19, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs UCFQ2 14:01 4th & 6 at UCF 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at USFQ4 3:08 4th & 7 at midfield, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ECUQ1 1:13 4th & 9 at ECU 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

19th 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

   M-OH
2. W

   MUR
3. W

   IU
4. W

   ND
5. W

   TEM
6. W

   UCF
7. W

   NAVY
8. W

   TULN
9. W

   TLSA
10. W

    USF
11. W

    SMU
12. W

    ECU
13. W

    HOU
14. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2021

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+2.24
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.85

Game by game

• M-OHW 49-14 vs M-OH92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• MURW 42-7 vs MUR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• IUW 38-24 at IU62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• NDW 24-13 at ND56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• TEMW 52-3 vs TEM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UCFW 56-21 vs UCF92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• NAVYW 27-20 at NAVY97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• TULNW 31-12 at TULN96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12
• TLSAW 28-20 vs TLSA94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +12
• USFW 45-28 at USF93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16
• SMUW 48-14 vs SMU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• ECUW 35-13 at ECU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• HOUW 35-20 vs HOU78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 6-27 at ALA19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −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.