Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1868th
  Defense+0.0282nd
• 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.
  Offense42.6%52nd
  Defense39.6%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3074th
  Defense+1.1485th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1155th
  Defense+0.0465th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2663rd
  Defense+0.0985th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%66th
  Defense45.6%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.3%22nd
  Defense27.5%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0137th
  Defense2.9173rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%47th
  Defense17.3%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%49th
  Defense13.3%13th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   BUF
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   SMU
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   MSU
6. L
   PUR
7. W
   IU
8. W
   NU
9. L
   WIS
10. L
    PSU
11. L
    OSU
12. W
    RUTG
13. W
    NCSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2022

1. Taulia TagovailoaQB393 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 62nd of 234 QBs
   1.23WAR0.62 to 2.01
2. Roman HembyRB187 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 20th of 384 RBs
   0.59WAR0.44 to 0.73
3. Billy Edwards Jr.QB54 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 163rd of 234 QBs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.35
4. Jeshaun JonesWR34 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 151st of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Antwain Littleton Jr.RB63 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 238th of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Chad RylandPK19 plays · +0.325 pts/play · 15th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Corey DychesTE37 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 25th of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20
8. Rakim JarrettWR37 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 222nd of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68068038th of 129Roster talent: 680, 38th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121128th of 129Recruiting: 211, 28th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%34th of 128Returning production: 71%, 34th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.2+11.232nd of 129SP+ rating: +11.2, 32nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.15 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 NUQ4 0:00 4th & 14 at NU 37, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs PURQ4 13:40 4th & 4 at PUR 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs OSUQ4 5:54 4th & 6 at MD 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs MSUQ2 10:17 4th & 1 at MD 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs NUQ2 0:08 4th & 2 at NU 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at WISQ3 4:54 4th & 1 at MD 22, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MSUQ4 7:54 4th & 3 at MSU 33, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at NCSUQ4 2:34 4th & 5 at MD 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

45th of 131 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

   BUF
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   SMU
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   MSU
6. L

   PUR
7. W

   IU
8. W

   NU
9. L

   WIS
10. L

    PSU
11. L

    OSU
12. W

    RUTG
13. W

    NCSU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.56
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• BUFW 31-10 vs BUF95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• CLTW 56-21 at CLT96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• SMUW 34-27 vs SMU60% → 91%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• MICHL 27-34 at MICH11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MSUW 27-13 vs MSU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• PURL 29-31 vs PUR60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• IUW 38-33 at IU79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• NUW 31-24 vs NU84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• WISL 10-23 at WIS37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 0-30 at PSU21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• OSUL 30-43 vs OSU4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• RUTGW 37-0 vs RUTG83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• NCSUW 16-12 at NCSU48% → 95%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +49, Clock +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.