Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0422nd
  Defense+0.1242nd
• 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.
  Offense37.2%10th
  Defense41.5%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2870th
  Defense+1.2164th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0122nd
  Defense+0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1423rd
  Defense+0.2922nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%12th
  Defense46.1%65th
• 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%19th
  Defense32.1%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9121st
  Defense2.8878th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%18th
  Defense15.5%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%26th
  Defense17.3%65th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UK
2. W
   RMU
3. L
   CIN
4. W
   NU
5. L
   BUF
6. W
   KENT
7. L
   BGSU
8. L
   WMU
9. W
   AKR
10. L
    OHIO
11. W
    NIU
12. W
    BALL
13. L
    UAB

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

Players, 2022

1. Aveon SmithQB254 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 74th of 234 QBs
   1.00WAR0.44 to 1.53
2. Brett GabbertQB103 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 136th of 234 QBs
   0.39WAR0.17 to 0.62
3. Dom DziobanPK51 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 3rd of 110 kickers
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.26
4. Mac HippenhammerWR47 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 124th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
5. Keyon MozeeRB53 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 221st of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Kevin DavisRB43 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 264th of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Tyre SheltonRB62 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 266th of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Graham NicholsonPK15 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 34th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  397397111th of 129Roster talent: 397, 111th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015080th of 129Recruiting: 150, 80th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%49th of 128Returning production: 66%, 49th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.7−12.7102nd of 129SP+ rating: −12.7, 102nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.14 of the 0.24 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 BGSUQ4 7:10 4th & 4 at BGSU 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. vs KENTQ4 9:15 4th & 2 at M-OH 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs WMUQ4 11:44 4th & 8 at WMU 9, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
4. at NUQ2 8:09 4th & 19 at NU 21, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. at BUFQ4 4:22 4th & 11 at BUF 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
6. at AKRQ3 4:30 4th & 1 at M-OH 22, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs WMUQ3 12:25 4th & 4 at WMU 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs BALLQ3 6:05 4th & 3 at BALL 8, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

70th of 131 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

   UK
2. W

   RMU
3. L

   CIN
4. W

   NU
5. L

   BUF
6. W

   KENT
7. L

   BGSU
8. L

   WMU
9. W

   AKR
10. L

    OHIO
11. W

    NIU
12. W

    BALL
13. L

    UAB

What moved it, 2022

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−0.97
• Possession & field position+0.13
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• UKL 13-37 at UK14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18
• RMUW 31-14 vs RMU96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9
• CINL 17-38 vs CIN8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• NUW 17-14 at NU29% → 84%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• BUFL 20-24 at BUF45% → 23%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• KENTW 27-24 vs KENT39% → 25%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position +4
• BGSUL 13-17 at BGSU66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −4
• WMUL 10-16 vs WMU72% → 27%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +3
• AKRW 27-9 at AKR78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• OHIOL 21-37 vs OHIO52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• NIUW 29-23 at NIU45% → 96%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• BALLW 18-17 vs BALL61% → 66%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +2, Clock +1
• UABL 20-24 at UAB22% → 19%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −17, 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.