Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.076th
  Defense+0.0952nd
• 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.
  Offense35.3%2nd
  Defense41.5%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2570th
  Defense+1.2139th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.115th
  Defense0.0072nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.1743rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%6th
  Defense44.7%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.4%12th
  Defense34.8%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6319th
  Defense2.5088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%13th
  Defense23.4%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.4%4th
  Defense1.8%40th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Miami (OH) 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
   PRES
2. L
   WIS
3. L
   CIN
4. L
   WKU
5. L
   KENT
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   NIU
8. L
   WMU
9. L
   BUF
10. W
    EMU
11. L
    AKR
12. W
    MASS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami (OH).

Players, 2015

1. Billy BahlQB190 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 118th of 205 QBs
   0.65WAR0.38 to 0.93
2. Gus RaglandQB66 plays · +0.305 pts/play · 147th of 205 QBs
   0.38WAR0.19 to 0.55
3. Drew KummerQB68 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 181st of 205 QBs
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.25
4. Alonzo SmithRB92 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 155th of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Kaleb PattersonPK10 plays · +0.441 pts/play · 87th of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
6. Sam MartinWR22 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 262nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Rokeem WilliamsWR52 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 307th of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.13
8. Jared MurphyWR36 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 317th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10

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 Miami (OH)'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39739792nd of 128Roster talent: 397, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11811896th of 128Recruiting: 118, 96th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%115th of 127Returning production: 32%, 115th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.5−13.5108th of 128SP+ rating: −13.5, 108th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Miami (OH)'s own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.22 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 AKRQ4 6:56 4th & 2 at M-OH 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs CINQ4 7:12 4th & 4 at CIN 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs PRESQ3 14:22 4th & 1 at PRES 47, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs PRESQ3 4:04 4th & 4 at PRES 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs BUFQ4 11:29 4th & 11 at BUF 26, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
6. vs AKRQ4 1:06 4th & 22 at AKR 35, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. vs EMUQ4 12:24 4th & 2 at EMU 40, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs CINQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at M-OH 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

65th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Miami (OH)'s chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   PRES
2. L

   WIS
3. L

   CIN
4. L

   WKU
5. L

   KENT
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   NIU
8. L

   WMU
9. L

   BUF
10. W

    EMU
11. L

    AKR
12. W

    MASS

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Miami (OH)'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−0.65
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.84

Game by game

• PRESW 26-7 vs PRES74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• WISL 0-58 at WIS3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4
• CINL 33-37 vs CIN8% → 4%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• WKUL 14-56 at WKU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• KENTL 14-20 at KENT22% → 5%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• OHIOL 3-34 at OHIO11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• NIUL 12-45 vs NIU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• WMUL 13-35 at WMU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• BUFL 24-29 vs BUF23% → 11%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• EMUW 28-13 vs EMU65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• AKRL 28-37 vs AKR35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• MASSW 20-13 at MASS24% → 92%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +49, Possession & field position +3

Points of win probability, from Miami (OH)'s side.

Closest call

MASS 20-23 M-OH (2024) - Miami (OH) dropped to a 6.6% win probability before pulling it out.