Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1150th
  Defense+0.0475th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%41st
  Defense42.6%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2151st
  Defense+1.0988th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0120th
  Defense+0.0463rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2576th
  Defense+0.0681st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%51st
  Defense48.1%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%38th
  Defense30.9%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7220th
  Defense2.8363rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%43rd
  Defense18.1%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%51st
  Defense17.4%68th

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, 2016

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. L
   IOWA
2. L
   EIU
3. L
   WKU
4. L
   CIN
5. L
   OHIO
6. L
   AKR
7. W
   KENT
8. W
   BGSU
9. W
   EMU
10. W
    CMU
11. W
    BUF
12. W
    BALL
13. L
    MSST

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

Players, 2016

1. Gus RaglandQB258 plays · +0.299 pts/play · 51st of 218 QBs
   1.44WAR1.02 to 1.82
2. Alonzo SmithRB119 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 155th of 347 RBs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.36
3. Kenny YoungRB84 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 166th of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
4. James GardnerWR58 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 108th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
5. Noah WezenskyQB53 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 181st of 218 QBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.22
6. Jared MurphyWR53 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17
7. Nick DowdPK12 plays · +0.325 pts/play · 83rd of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Billy BahlQB96 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 204th of 218 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.09 to 0.22

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41841889th of 128Roster talent: 418, 89th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12212292nd of 128Recruiting: 122, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%30th of 128Returning production: 84%, 30th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.1−6.191st of 128SP+ rating: −6.1, 91st 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.26 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 KENTQ4 8:29 4th & 1 at M-OH 29, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at MSSTQ4 14:49 4th & 13 at MSST 30, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
3. vs KENTQ3 4:08 4th & 3 at KENT 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at CINQ3 11:32 4th & 1 at M-OH 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs BALLQ2 7:23 4th & 1 at M-OH 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at BUFQ2 4:56 4th & 1 at M-OH 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at BGSUQ4 12:31 4th & 3 at M-OH 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs WKUQ4 13:39 4th & 5 at WKU 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

43rd 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. L

   IOWA
2. L

   EIU
3. L

   WKU
4. L

   CIN
5. L

   OHIO
6. L

   AKR
7. W

   KENT
8. W

   BGSU
9. W

   EMU
10. W

    CMU
11. W

    BUF
12. W

    BALL
13. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2016

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+0.45
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• IOWAL 21-45 at IOWA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• EIUL 17-21 vs EIU79% → 13%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position −3
• WKUL 24-31 vs WKU19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• CINL 20-27 at CIN12% → 7%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• OHIOL 7-17 vs OHIO45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• AKRL 13-35 at AKR35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• KENTW 18-14 vs KENT49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• BGSUW 40-26 at BGSU47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• EMUW 28-15 at EMU36% → 98%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• CMUW 37-17 vs CMU34% → 99%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts −1
• BUFW 35-24 at BUF83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• BALLW 21-20 vs BALL66% → 80%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +3
• MSSTL 16-17 at MSST24% → 7%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1

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.