Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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.
  Offense37.8%9th
  Defense45.8%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2573rd
  Defense+1.1760th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0447th
  Defense+0.1617th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense+0.1838th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%16th
  Defense50.4%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%6th
  Defense34.6%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6622nd
  Defense3.1816th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%25th
  Defense16.4%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.4%12th
  Defense13.6%13th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   TEX
2. W
   TOW
3. L
   UCF
4. W
   MINN
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   NU
7. L
   WIS
8. W
   IU
9. L
   RUTG
10. L
    MICH
11. L
    MSU
12. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2017

1. Ty JohnsonRB103 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 53rd of 352 RBs
   0.40WAR0.30 to 0.50
2. Lorenzo Harrison IIIRB102 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 82nd of 352 RBs
   0.34WAR0.25 to 0.42
3. Max BortenschlagerQB205 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 146th of 226 QBs
   0.33WAR−0.06 to 0.74
4. D.J. MooreWR79 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 66th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
5. Taivon JacobsWR52 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Tyrrell PigromeQB22 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 202nd of 226 QBs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Wade LeesP43 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 45th of 95 punters
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.13
8. Adam GreenePK2 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 108th of 110 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69669628th of 130Roster talent: 696, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819834th of 130Recruiting: 198, 34th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%96th of 128Returning production: 44%, 96th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.585th of 128SP+ rating: −4.5, 85th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.10 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 IUQ4 2:10 4th & 2 at MD 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. vs IUQ3 11:42 4th & 2 at IU 19, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at MINNQ4 8:00 4th & 6 at MINN 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at TEXQ3 5:20 4th & 3 at MD 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at TEXQ2 5:38 4th & 3 at TEX 13, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at MSUQ2 5:02 4th & 2 at MD 28, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs IUQ2 9:52 4th & 3 at MD 44, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MICHQ2 12:13 4th & 7 at MD 30, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

54th of 130 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

   TEX
2. W

   TOW
3. L

   UCF
4. W

   MINN
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   NU
7. L

   WIS
8. W

   IU
9. L

   RUTG
10. L

    MICH
11. L

    MSU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.67
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• TEXW 51-41 at TEX11% → 97%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• TOWW 63-17 vs TOW98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UCFL 10-38 vs UCF61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• MINNW 31-24 at MINN20% → 95%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• OSUL 14-62 at OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4
• NUL 21-37 vs NU42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• WISL 13-38 at WIS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts +1
• IUW 42-39 vs IU34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• RUTGL 24-31 at RUTG62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −2
• MICHL 10-35 vs MICH12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• MSUL 7-17 at MSU19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24
• PSUL 3-66 vs PSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10

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.