Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.0111th
  Defense+0.0769th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%12th
  Defense42.3%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1218th
  Defense+1.1669th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0022nd
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.0385th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%18th
  Defense48.5%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%7th
  Defense29.8%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5210th
  Defense2.9445th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%6th
  Defense18.9%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.4%13th
  Defense20.5%57th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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. W
   TNTC
3. L
   CIN
4. L
   OSU
5. W
   BUF
6. L
   WMU
7. W
   NIU
8. W
   KENT
9. W
   OHIO
10. W
    BGSU
11. W
    AKR
12. L
    BALL
13. W
    CMU
14. L
    UL

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

Players, 2019

1. Brett GabbertQB332 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 73rd of 228 QBs
   1.08WAR0.49 to 1.67
2. Jaylon BesterRB171 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 73rd of 349 RBs
   0.46WAR0.30 to 0.64
3. Tyre SheltonRB101 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 118th of 349 RBs
   0.35WAR0.28 to 0.42
4. Sam SlomanPK26 plays · +0.500 pts/play · 4th of 114 kickers
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
5. Jack SorensonWR57 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 70th of 439 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.26
6. Davion JohnsonRB52 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 249th of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Jalen WalkerWR33 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 201st of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Kyle KramerP56 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 30th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  359359113th of 130Roster talent: 359, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128101st of 130Recruiting: 128, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%112th of 130Returning production: 36%, 112th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.2−9.2102nd of 130SP+ rating: −9.2, 102nd 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, 2019

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 0.13 of the 0.25 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 OHIOQ4 0:07 4th & 17 at OHIO 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.0 pts
2. at OHIOQ2 5:06 4th & 1 at M-OH 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at OHIOQ4 3:48 4th & 7 at OHIO 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs AKRQ4 8:35 4th & 2 at M-OH 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs BUFQ2 13:59 4th & 1 at BUF 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at CMUQ4 4:06 4th & 4 at CMU 30, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at CMUQ3 6:21 4th & 8 at CMU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at CMUQ2 0:01 4th & 10 at CMU 46, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

4th of 130 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. W

   TNTC
3. L

   CIN
4. L

   OSU
5. W

   BUF
6. L

   WMU
7. W

   NIU
8. W

   KENT
9. W

   OHIO
10. W

    BGSU
11. W

    AKR
12. L

    BALL
13. W

    CMU
14. L

    UL

What moved it, 2019

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+1.43
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• IOWAL 14-38 at IOWA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• TNTCW 48-17 vs TNTC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• CINL 13-35 at CIN11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• OSUL 5-76 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• BUFW 34-20 vs BUF43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• WMUL 16-38 at WMU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20
• NIUW 27-24 vs NIU38% → 93%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• KENTW 23-16 at KENT36% → 92%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• OHIOW 24-21 at OHIO30% → 87%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• BGSUW 44-3 vs BGSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• AKRW 20-17 vs AKR94% → 95%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• BALLL 27-41 at BALL40% → 3%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• CMUW 26-21 at CMU32% → 90%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• ULL 17-27 vs UL14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2

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.