Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1354th
  Defense+0.248th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%62nd
  Defense41.2%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2545th
  Defense+1.522nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1985th
  Defense+0.2010th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1631st
  Defense+0.388th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%52nd
  Defense45.0%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%70th
  Defense34.2%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3689th
  Defense3.0062nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%68th
  Defense24.1%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense18.6%82nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   EKU
2. W
   PITT
3. L
   M-OH
4. L
   OU
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   ISU
7. L
   BAY
8. L
   OKST
9. L
   UCF
10. W
    HOU
11. L
    WVU
12. L
    KU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2023

1. Emory JonesQB387 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 61st of 250 QBs
   1.37WAR0.71 to 2.07
2. Corey KinerRB174 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 56th of 383 RBs
   0.33WAR0.17 to 0.50
3. Ryan MontgomeryRB55 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 184th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
4. Myles MontgomeryRB57 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 187th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Mason FletcherP35 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 49th of 103 punters
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Carter BrownPK18 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 48th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Braden SmithWR40 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 206th of 457 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
8. Chamon MetayerTE20 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 77th of 212 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66466451st of 130Roster talent: 664, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818855th of 130Recruiting: 188, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  7%7%128th of 128Returning production: 7%, 128th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.8−6.885th of 130SP+ rating: −6.8, 85th 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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. vs M-OHQ4 2:44 4th & 9 at CIN 26, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−6.3 pts
2. at PITTQ4 12:38 4th & 3 at CIN 49, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at BYUQ3 13:40 4th & 1 at CIN 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs OUQ2 1:41 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at BYUQ3 5:24 4th & 4 at BYU 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs OUQ2 13:31 4th & 1 at CIN 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at WVUQ2 14:53 4th & 2 at CIN 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at HOUQ4 1:26 4th & 7 at HOU 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

128th of 133 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

   EKU
2. W

   PITT
3. L

   M-OH
4. L

   OU
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   ISU
7. L

   BAY
8. L

   OKST
9. L

   UCF
10. W

    HOU
11. L

    WVU
12. L

    KU

What moved it, 2023

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−1.79
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• EKUW 66-13 vs EKU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• PITTW 27-21 at PITT31% → 96%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• M-OHL 24-31 vs M-OH81% → 61%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −19: Clock −3, Timeouts +2
• OUL 6-20 vs OU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• BYUL 27-35 at BYU48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• ISUL 10-30 vs ISU57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• BAYL 29-32 vs BAY50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• OKSTL 13-45 at OKST28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31
• UCFL 26-28 vs UCF34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• HOUW 24-14 at HOU40% → 97%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• WVUL 21-42 at WVU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• KUL 16-49 vs KU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30

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.