Cincinnati

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2590th
  Defense+0.1816th
• 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.
  Offense46.3%82nd
  Defense45.2%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3073rd
  Defense+1.1781st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2090th
  Defense+0.1614th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3891st
  Defense+0.2135th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.2%87th
  Defense49.8%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%67th
  Defense33.3%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4798th
  Defense3.307th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%73rd
  Defense14.5%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.0%92nd
  Defense12.2%6th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   NEB
2. W
   BGSU
3. W
   NWST
4. W
   KU
5. W
   ISU
6. W
   UCF
7. W
   OKST
8. W
   BAY
9. L
   UTAH
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    TCU
13. L
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2025

1. Brendan SorsbyQB350 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 31st of 231 QBs
   1.59WAR0.97 to 2.20
2. Tawee WalkerRB110 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 135th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
3. Cyrus AllenWR63 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 128th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.00 to 0.28
4. Evan PryorRB78 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 177th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
5. Joe RoyerTE30 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 41st of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15
6. Caleb GoodieWR40 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.17
7. Stephen RusnakPK13 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 64th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Jeff CaldwellWR48 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 287th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.03 to 0.15

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464473rd of 134Roster talent: 644, 73rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818857th of 134Recruiting: 188, 57th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%43rd of 132Returning production: 50%, 43rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.5+4.555th of 134SP+ rating: +4.5, 55th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 UCFQ3 10:57 4th & 2 at CIN 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
2. at KUQ2 1:47 4th & 2 at CIN 33, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs UCFQ4 0:52 4th & 13 at UCF 37, up 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 3:10 4th & 4 at CIN 39, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs NEBQ1 4:47 4th & 2 at NEB 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs ARIZQ4 6:56 4th & 2 at ARIZ 13, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at TCUQ1 7:59 4th & 1 at CIN 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs NAVYQ2 3:50 4th & 6 at NAVY 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

85th of 136 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

   NEB
2. W

   BGSU
3. W

   NWST
4. W

   KU
5. W

   ISU
6. W

   UCF
7. W

   OKST
8. W

   BAY
9. L

   UTAH
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    TCU
13. L

    NAVY

What moved it, 2025

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−0.93
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• NEBL 17-20 vs NEB32% → 7%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• BGSUW 34-20 vs BGSU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• NWSTW 70-0 vs NWST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• KUW 37-34 at KU38% → 87%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +44, Clock +4
• ISUW 38-30 vs ISU52% → 91%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +2
• UCFW 20-11 vs UCF79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• OKSTW 49-17 at OKST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• BAYW 41-20 vs BAY54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 14-45 at UTAH26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• ARIZL 24-30 vs ARIZ65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• BYUL 14-26 vs BYU44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• TCUL 23-45 at TCU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Clock +1
• NAVYL 13-35 vs NAVY36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2

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.