Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0838th
  Defense+0.1152nd
• 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.
  Offense40.3%17th
  Defense45.8%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3698th
  Defense+1.1761st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1781st
  Defense+0.0844th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.1555th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%20th
  Defense51.1%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.8%33rd
  Defense32.2%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9244th
  Defense3.1124th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%13th
  Defense19.1%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%1st
  Defense15.7%43rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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
   HOW
2. W
   FIU
3. W
   UCF
4. W
   PUR
5. L
   PSU
6. L
   MINN
7. W
   MSU
8. L
   IU
9. L
   MICH
10. L
    OSU
11. L
    NEB
12. W
    RUTG
13. L
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2016

1. Ty JohnsonRB97 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 71st of 347 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.56
2. Perry HillsQB236 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 138th of 218 QBs
   0.42WAR0.01 to 0.78
3. Lorenzo Harrison IIIRB70 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 136th of 347 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.36
4. Tyrrell PigromeQB52 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 163rd of 218 QBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.29
5. Wade LeesP49 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 30th of 82 punters
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
6. D.J. MooreWR59 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 187th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Levern JacobsWR42 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Teldrick MorganWR38 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65265234th of 128Roster talent: 652, 34th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818844th of 128Recruiting: 188, 44th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%24th of 128Returning production: 87%, 24th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.6−0.667th of 128SP+ rating: −0.6, 67th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 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 BCQ4 2:55 4th & 5 at BC 5, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it4.2 pts
2. at UCFQ4 0:06 4th & 4 at UCF 45, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal3.6 pts
3. vs RUTGQ3 11:51 4th & 1 at MD 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
4. vs MINNQ2 8:03 4th & 1 at MD 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
5. vs RUTGQ2 14:55 4th & 2 at RUTG 28, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. at PSUQ4 14:55 4th & 10 at MD 40, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.8 pts
7. vs PURQ1 4:17 4th & 1 at MD 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. at UCFQ4 8:46 4th & 8 at UCF 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

78th of 128 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

   HOW
2. W

   FIU
3. W

   UCF
4. W

   PUR
5. L

   PSU
6. L

   MINN
7. W

   MSU
8. L

   IU
9. L

   MICH
10. L

    OSU
11. L

    NEB
12. W

    RUTG
13. L

    BC

What moved it, 2016

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−0.08
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• HOWW 52-13 vs HOW100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• FIUW 41-14 at FIU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• UCFW 30-24 at UCF72% → 90%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +14
• PURW 50-7 vs PUR75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• PSUL 14-38 at PSU41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• MINNL 10-31 vs MINN56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• MSUW 28-17 vs MSU47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• IUL 36-42 at IU41% → 20%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +5
• MICHL 3-59 at MICH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• OSUL 3-62 vs OSU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• NEBL 7-28 at NEB15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19
• RUTGW 31-13 vs RUTG58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +40
• BCL 30-36 vs BC47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3

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.