Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1458th
  Defense0.0087th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%32nd
  Defense36.6%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2865th
  Defense+1.2453rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0948th
  Defense+0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2350th
  Defense+0.0789th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%26th
  Defense41.7%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%49th
  Defense26.9%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0547th
  Defense2.9759th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%85th
  Defense16.4%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%59th
  Defense18.7%83rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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. L
   ARK
2. W
   KENN
3. W
   M-OH
4. W
   IU
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   USF
7. W
   SMU
8. L
   UCF
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    ECU
11. W
    TEM
12. L
    TULN
13. L
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2022

1. Ben BryantQB354 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 37th of 234 QBs
   1.68WAR1.14 to 2.28
2. Charles McClellandRB129 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 106th of 384 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
3. Tyler ScottWR53 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 53rd of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
4. Ryan MontgomeryRB67 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 175th of 384 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
5. Tre TuckerWR55 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 116th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.25
6. Josh WhyleTE40 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 12th of 214 TEs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
7. Mason FletcherP46 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 16th of 102 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
8. Ryan CoePK21 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 20th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65165149th of 129Roster talent: 651, 49th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18518555th of 129Recruiting: 185, 55th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%112th of 128Returning production: 27%, 112th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.1+13.124th of 129SP+ rating: +13.1, 24th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 UCFQ4 0:02 4th & 30 at CIN 5, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.5 pts
2. at UCFQ2 4:36 4th & 2 at UCF 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs USFQ2 2:20 4th & 1 at CIN 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ECUQ4 9:42 4th & 3 at ECU 3, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs USFQ3 5:41 4th & 3 at USF 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs ECUQ4 14:06 4th & 2 at CIN 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at SMUQ3 10:20 4th & 6 at SMU 34, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs IUQ4 3:37 4th & 1 at CIN 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

46th of 131 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. L

   ARK
2. W

   KENN
3. W

   M-OH
4. W

   IU
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   USF
7. W

   SMU
8. L

   UCF
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    ECU
11. W

    TEM
12. L

    TULN
13. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.76
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• ARKL 24-31 at ARK26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• KENNW 63-10 vs KENN66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34
• M-OHW 38-17 at M-OH92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• IUW 45-24 vs IU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• TLSAW 31-21 at TLSA74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• USFW 28-24 vs USF95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• SMUW 29-27 at SMU56% → 94%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• UCFL 21-25 at UCF41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 20-10 vs NAVY91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 27-25 vs ECU58% → 87%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• TEMW 23-3 at TEM85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• TULNL 24-27 vs TULN42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• LOUL 7-24 at LOU38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, 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.