Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1350th
  Defense+0.0857th
• 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%23rd
  Defense44.1%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3896th
  Defense+1.1181st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1986th
  Defense+0.0940th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0625th
  Defense+0.0869th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%24th
  Defense50.0%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%34th
  Defense31.6%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9453rd
  Defense3.1217th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%19th
  Defense16.6%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%19th
  Defense13.7%12th

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, 2018

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
   BGSU
3. L
   TEM
4. W
   MINN
5. L
   MICH
6. W
   RUTG
7. L
   IOWA
8. W
   ILL
9. L
   MSU
10. L
    IU
11. L
    OSU
12. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2018

1. Kasim HillQB178 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 132nd of 225 QBs
   0.56WAR0.28 to 0.84
2. Anthony McFarland Jr.RB111 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 86th of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.50
3. Tyrrell PigromeQB88 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 168th of 225 QBs
   0.29WAR0.13 to 0.48
4. Ty JohnsonRB58 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 210th of 351 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.24
5. Wade LeesP55 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 31st of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15
6. Taivon JacobsWR48 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 285th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
7. Lorenzo Harrison IIIRB11 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 285th of 351 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Jeshaun JonesWR15 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 390th of 434 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72672624th of 130Roster talent: 726, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520532nd of 130Recruiting: 205, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%57th of 129Returning production: 67%, 57th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.0+3.059th of 130SP+ rating: +3.0, 59th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.26 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 TEMQ4 4:04 4th & 16 at MD 49, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−7.0 pts
2. vs TEXQ4 6:45 4th & 2 at TEX 2, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
3. vs TEMQ4 14:54 4th & 12 at TEM 26, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.8 pts
4. vs TEXQ4 2:43 4th & 6 at TEX 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at IUQ3 5:44 4th & 3 at MD 47, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs OSUQ4 9:00 4th & 8 at OSU 46, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
7. vs TEXQ2 12:57 4th & 3 at TEX 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs TEMQ2 6:31 4th & 2 at TEM 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

96th 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

   BGSU
3. L

   TEM
4. W

   MINN
5. L

   MICH
6. W

   RUTG
7. L

   IOWA
8. W

   ILL
9. L

   MSU
10. L

    IU
11. L

    OSU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.28
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• TEXW 34-29 vs TEX17% → 93%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position −1
• BGSUW 45-14 at BGSU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• TEML 14-35 vs TEM88% → 61%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −27: Clock −1, Timeouts +1
• MINNW 42-13 vs MINN57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42
• MICHL 21-42 at MICH12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• RUTGW 34-7 vs RUTG94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• IOWAL 0-23 at IOWA26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• ILLW 63-33 vs ILL87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• MSUL 3-24 vs MSU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• IUL 32-34 at IU52% → 11%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• OSUL 51-52 vs OSU15% → 44%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +29: Timeouts −17, Scoreboard −16
• PSUL 3-38 at PSU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21

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.