Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1870th
  Defense+0.0287th
• 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.
  Offense44.2%67th
  Defense40.6%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2755th
  Defense+1.1488th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1050th
  Defense+0.0852nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2861st
  Defense+0.1477th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%60th
  Defense45.2%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.0%83rd
  Defense29.4%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0945th
  Defense3.1242nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%66th
  Defense13.2%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%29th
  Defense15.6%34th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TOW
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   UVA
4. W
   MSU
5. W
   IU
6. L
   OSU
7. L
   ILL
8. L
   NU
9. L
   PSU
10. W
    NEB
11. L
    MICH
12. W
    RUTG
13. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2023

1. Taulia TagovailoaQB410 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 42nd of 250 QBs
   1.61WAR0.84 to 2.37
2. Roman HembyRB146 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 48th of 383 RBs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.51
3. Jeshaun JonesWR51 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 31st of 457 WRs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
4. Billy Edwards Jr.QB38 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 174th of 250 QBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.36
5. Kaden PratherWR40 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 71st of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
6. Corey DychesTE44 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 32nd of 212 TEs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.25
7. Tai FeltonWR48 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 149th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.22
8. Jack HowesPK15 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 45th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68668643rd of 130Roster talent: 686, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521527th of 130Recruiting: 215, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%17th of 128Returning production: 78%, 17th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.021st of 130SP+ rating: +11.0, 21st 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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 NEBQ2 0:00 4th & 17 at NEB 44, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.6 pts
2. at MSUQ3 15:00 4th & 10 at MD 25, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
3. at NUQ3 4:45 4th & 4 at NU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs AUBQ3 7:50 4th & 15 at AUB 35, up 24Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs UVAQ1 0:16 4th & 2 at UVA 48, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at OSUQ2 12:56 4th & 3 at OSU 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs ILLQ4 11:44 4th & 2 at MD 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MSUQ4 13:57 4th & 9 at MSU 40, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

72nd of 133 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

   TOW
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   UVA
4. W

   MSU
5. W

   IU
6. L

   OSU
7. L

   ILL
8. L

   NU
9. L

   PSU
10. W

    NEB
11. L

    MICH
12. W

    RUTG
13. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2023

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+0.36
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• TOWW 38-6 vs TOW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• CLTW 38-20 vs CLT96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• UVAW 42-14 vs UVA90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MSUW 31-9 at MSU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• IUW 44-17 vs IU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• OSUL 17-37 at OSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• ILLL 24-27 vs ILL85% → 7%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• NUL 27-33 at NU83% → 4%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −4
• PSUL 15-51 vs PSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• NEBW 13-10 at NEB60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• MICHL 24-31 vs MICH11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• RUTGW 42-24 at RUTG60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• AUBW 31-13 vs AUB41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +47, 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.