Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2478th
  Defense+0.1350th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%51st
  Defense41.1%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4195th
  Defense+1.3036th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1250th
  Defense+0.1052nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3788th
  Defense+0.2343rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%41st
  Defense49.1%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%86th
  Defense25.6%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1254th
  Defense2.9657th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%40th
  Defense15.5%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%79th
  Defense19.3%86th

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, 2021

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
   CIN
2. L
   MINN
3. W
   LIU
4. L
   ARMY
5. W
   CMU
6. L
   EMU
7. W
   AKR
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   OHIO
10. W
    BUF
11. W
    BGSU
12. L
    KENT
13. W
    UNT

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

Players, 2021

1. Brett GabbertQB309 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 54th of 219 QBs
   1.62WAR1.01 to 2.28
2. AJ MayerQB109 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 118th of 219 QBs
   0.58WAR0.37 to 0.78
3. Jack SorensonWR87 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 3rd of 474 WRs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.52
4. Mac HippenhammerWR67 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 55th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.29
5. Keyon MozeeRB69 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 227th of 387 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
6. Kevin DavisRB57 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 233rd of 387 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
7. Tyre SheltonRB44 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 274th of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
8. Graham NicholsonPK19 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 23rd of 128 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  378378111th of 130Roster talent: 378, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813899th of 130Recruiting: 138, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  94%94%15th of 128Returning production: 94%, 15th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.5+1.573rd of 130SP+ rating: +1.5, 73rd 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 KENTQ4 0:04 4th & 2 at KENT 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. vs UNTQ3 7:58 4th & 1 at M-OH 13, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs CMUQ3 5:15 4th & 4 at CMU 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs BUFQ3 11:28 4th & 3 at BUF 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at BALLQ1 0:30 4th & 2 at BALL 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at KENTQ3 10:39 4th & 5 at KENT 44, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at BALLQ4 15:00 4th & 10 at BALL 35, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OHIOQ4 5:18 4th & 3 at OHIO 9, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

73rd 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

   CIN
2. L

   MINN
3. W

   LIU
4. L

   ARMY
5. W

   CMU
6. L

   EMU
7. W

   AKR
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   OHIO
10. W

    BUF
11. W

    BGSU
12. L

    KENT
13. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2021

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+1.35
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.29
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• CINL 14-49 at CIN8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• MINNL 26-31 at MINN10% → 7%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −16
• LIUW 42-7 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ARMYL 10-23 at ARMY32% → 2%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• CMUW 28-17 vs CMU48% → 97%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +1
• EMUL 12-13 at EMU58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +5
• AKRW 34-21 vs AKR92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• BALLW 24-17 at BALL43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• OHIOL 33-35 at OHIO69% → 5%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −42
• BUFW 45-18 vs BUF73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −1
• BGSUW 34-7 vs BGSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• KENTL 47-48 at KENT56% → 59%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +3: Timeouts +25, Clock −15
• UNTW 27-14 vs UNT61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +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.