Maryland

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0840th
  Defense+0.0660th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%27th
  Defense44.2%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3277th
  Defense+1.1779th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0131st
  Defense+0.1034th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1547th
  Defense+0.0582nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%7th
  Defense49.0%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%88th
  Defense32.4%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8336th
  Defense3.0625th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%46th
  Defense17.0%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%63rd
  Defense14.1%24th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   FAU
2. W
   NIU
3. W
   TOW
4. W
   WIS
5. L
   WASH
6. L
   NEB
7. L
   UCLA
8. L
   IU
9. L
   RUTG
10. L
    ILL
11. L
    MICH
12. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Maryland.

Players, 2025

1. Malik WashingtonQB441 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 36th of 231 QBs
   1.54WAR0.75 to 2.26
2. DeJuan WilliamsRB156 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 37th of 365 RBs
   0.32WAR0.22 to 0.45
3. Shaleak KnottsWR73 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 56th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.38
4. Sean O'HairePK18 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 24th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Nolan RayRB69 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 227th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Kaleb WebbWR34 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 196th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Octavian Smith Jr.WR63 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 212th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.20
8. Jalil FarooqWR68 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.15

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69969952nd of 134Roster talent: 699, 52nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521528th of 134Recruiting: 215, 28th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%117th of 132Returning production: 13%, 117th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.674th of 134SP+ rating: +0.6, 74th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.16 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 WISQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at WIS 8, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at UCLAQ4 5:46 4th & 4 at UCLA 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at UCLAQ4 14:25 4th & 2 at MD 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs NEBQ4 3:42 4th & 4 at MD 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ILLQ2 1:00 4th & 6 at ILL 41, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs NEBQ2 4:26 4th & 1 at MD 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs NIUQ4 14:04 4th & 8 at NIU 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs NIUQ4 14:04 4th & 8 at NIU 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

99th of 136 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

   FAU
2. W

   NIU
3. W

   TOW
4. W

   WIS
5. L

   WASH
6. L

   NEB
7. L

   UCLA
8. L

   IU
9. L

   RUTG
10. L

    ILL
11. L

    MICH
12. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.42
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Timeouts+0.40
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.44

Game by game

• FAUW 39-7 vs FAU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20
• NIUW 20-9 vs NIU87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19
• TOWW 44-17 vs TOW97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• WISW 27-10 at WIS23% → 99%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• WASHL 20-24 vs WASH31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NEBL 31-34 vs NEB27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• UCLAL 17-20 at UCLA40% → 31%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +44
• IUL 10-55 vs IU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• RUTGL 20-35 at RUTG40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• ILLL 6-24 at ILL13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MICHL 20-45 vs MICH15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• MSUL 28-38 at MSU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2

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.