Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.055th
  Defense+0.1921st
• 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.
  Offense37.1%6th
  Defense46.7%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3087th
  Defense+1.1378th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0853rd
  Defense+0.1326th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.172nd
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%12th
  Defense51.2%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.1%2nd
  Defense36.3%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9557th
  Defense2.9150th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.0%23rd
  Defense19.4%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.3%15th
  Defense19.0%36th

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, 2019

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
   SYR
3. L
   TEM
4. L
   PSU
5. W
   RUTG
6. L
   PUR
7. L
   IU
8. L
   MINN
9. L
   MICH
10. L
    OSU
11. L
    NEB
12. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2019

1. Anthony McFarland Jr.RB107 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 113th of 349 RBs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.46
2. Josh JacksonQB178 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 153rd of 228 QBs
   0.35WAR0.05 to 0.67
3. Javon LeakeRB82 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 130th of 349 RBs
   0.33WAR0.26 to 0.40
4. Tyrrell PigromeQB102 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 172nd of 228 QBs
   0.23WAR0.06 to 0.41
5. Dontay Demus Jr.WR50 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 210th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. Chigoziem OkonkwoTE20 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 72nd of 207 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
7. Joseph PetrinoPK3 plays · +0.420 pts/play · 108th of 114 kickers
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03
8. Tayon Fleet-DavisRB10 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 299th of 349 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70470427th of 130Roster talent: 704, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820832nd of 130Recruiting: 208, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%38th of 130Returning production: 72%, 38th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.3−6.394th of 130SP+ rating: −6.3, 94th 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 TEMQ4 2:20 4th & 12 at TEM 12, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.8 pts
2. vs IUQ4 7:56 4th & 4 at MD 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at PURQ2 2:00 4th & 13 at PUR 37, down 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at TEMQ2 1:35 4th & 8 at TEM 42, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs MICHQ3 9:54 4th & 1 at MD 33, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TEMQ2 5:25 4th & 3 at MD 27, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at PURQ3 10:23 4th & 4 at MD 40, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MINNQ1 1:43 4th & 3 at MINN 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

118th 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

   HOW
2. W

   SYR
3. L

   TEM
4. L

   PSU
5. W

   RUTG
6. L

   PUR
7. L

   IU
8. L

   MINN
9. L

   MICH
10. L

    OSU
11. L

    NEB
12. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.89
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• HOWW 79-0 vs HOW97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• SYRW 63-20 vs SYR60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +40
• TEML 17-20 at TEM66% → 7%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position +2
• PSUL 0-59 vs PSU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40
• RUTGW 48-7 at RUTG85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• PURL 14-40 at PUR62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −53
• IUL 28-34 vs IU30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• MINNL 10-52 at MINN15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• MICHL 7-38 vs MICH8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• OSUL 14-73 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NEBL 7-54 vs NEB30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• MSUL 16-19 at MSU8% → 11%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1

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.