Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1666th
  Defense+0.1147th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%68th
  Defense42.2%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2542nd
  Defense+1.2458th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0950th
  Defense+0.0557th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2365th
  Defense+0.1841st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%50th
  Defense47.2%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.1%88th
  Defense30.9%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0348th
  Defense3.1926th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%23rd
  Defense18.2%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%52nd
  Defense16.2%50th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   TOW
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   M-OH
4. W
   HOU
5. L
   TTU
6. W
   UCF
7. W
   ASU
8. L
   COLO
9. L
   WVU
10. L
    ISU
11. L
    KSU
12. L
    TCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2024

1. Brendan SorsbyQB432 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 48th of 232 QBs
   1.66WAR0.85 to 2.35
2. Corey KinerRB191 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 25th of 373 RBs
   0.50WAR0.37 to 0.65
3. Xzavier HendersonWR51 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 59th of 452 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.27
4. Evan PryorRB59 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 202nd of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. Joe RoyerTE43 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 28th of 221 TEs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.17
6. Nathan HawksPK15 plays · +0.314 pts/play · 45th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Tony JohnsonWR46 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 300th of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.12
8. Manny CoveyRB7 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 313th of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266260th of 131Roster talent: 662, 60th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818852nd of 131Recruiting: 188, 52nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%97th of 130Returning production: 31%, 97th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.1−0.170th of 131SP+ rating: −0.1, 70th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.07 of the 0.10 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 PITTQ4 2:46 4th & 3 at PITT 48, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. vs WVUQ2 5:05 4th & 1 at CIN 24, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs WVUQ2 1:51 4th & 1 at CIN 24, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at COLOQ3 8:51 4th & 2 at CIN 29, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs HOUQ2 1:51 4th & 4 at HOU 28, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs TCUQ1 7:13 4th & 1 at CIN 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at ISUQ2 8:07 4th & 3 at CIN 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TOWQ4 7:25 4th & 1 at CIN 22, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

90th of 134 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

   TOW
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   M-OH
4. W

   HOU
5. L

   TTU
6. W

   UCF
7. W

   ASU
8. L

   COLO
9. L

   WVU
10. L

    ISU
11. L

    KSU
12. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2024

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−0.61
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• TOWW 38-20 vs TOW98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• PITTL 27-28 vs PITT48% → 21%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −4
• M-OHW 27-16 at M-OH57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• HOUW 34-0 vs HOU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43, Clock −1
• TTUL 41-44 at TTU36% → 16%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +1
• UCFW 19-13 at UCF42% → 81%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• ASUW 24-14 vs ASU61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −2
• COLOL 23-34 at COLO31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −1
• WVUL 24-31 vs WVU58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• ISUL 17-34 at ISU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• KSUL 15-41 at KSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +1
• TCUL 13-20 vs TCU41% → 17%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4

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.