Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.1139th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%15th
  Defense44.2%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3173rd
  Defense+1.2254th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0329th
  Defense+0.1132nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0111th
  Defense+0.1553rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%19th
  Defense47.8%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.0%19th
  Defense36.0%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6412th
  Defense2.8158th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%17th
  Defense19.2%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%67th
  Defense15.6%46th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Maryland 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
   HAMP
2. W
   CONN
3. L
   VT
4. L
   UCLA
5. L
   NEB
6. L
   OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2026

1. Malik WashingtonQB150 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 98th of 192 QBs
   0.20WAR−0.01 to 0.41
2. Chris Durr Jr.WR39 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 13th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
3. Iverson HowardRB44 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 128th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
4. Kaleb WebbWR22 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 86th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
5. Sean O'HairePK5 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 37th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
6. Dorian FlemingTE22 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 51st of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06
7. DeJuan WilliamsRB9 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 256th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Cardell WilliamsQB4 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 191st of 192 QBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 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 Maryland'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72072046th of 138Roster talent: 720, 46th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521530th of 138Recruiting: 215, 30th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%51st of 136Returning production: 54%, 51st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.0−2.081st of 138SP+ rating so far: −2.0, 81st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Maryland'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 0.03 of the 0.04 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 CONNQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at CONN 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs VTQ2 5:58 4th & 13 at VT 34, down 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at OSUQ2 3:35 4th & 9 at MD 42, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at NEBQ3 8:50 4th & 5 at midfield, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at NEBQ1 4:12 4th & 3 at NEB 24, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at NEBQ4 9:27 4th & 8 at MD 42, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs UCLAQ1 8:41 4th & 2 at MD 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at NEBQ4 0:02 4th & 8 at NEB 37, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

121st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Maryland's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   HAMP
2. W

   CONN
3. L

   VT
4. L

   UCLA
5. L

   NEB
6. L

   OSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Maryland'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−1.05
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09

Game by game

• HAMPW 62-0 vs HAMP100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CONNW 38-14 at CONN83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• VTL 26-35 vs VT46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• UCLAL 3-54 vs UCLA46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts +2
• NEBL 23-48 at NEB19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 16-45 at OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5

Points of win probability, from Maryland's side.

Closest call

MD 20-17 ILL (2021) - Maryland dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.