Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense39.2%22nd
  Defense39.1%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2244th
  Defense+1.1973rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0436th
  Defense+0.0266th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0921st
  Defense+0.1065th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%20th
  Defense44.9%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%33rd
  Defense27.8%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1476th
  Defense2.7176th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%66th
  Defense20.5%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%75th
  Defense17.8%82nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   WIS
2. L
   RUTG
3. L
   UNLV
4. W
   LIN
5. W
   NIU
6. W
   AKR
7. W
   EMU
8. W
   WMU
9. L
   OHIO
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    BUF
12. W
    BALL
13. L
    WMU
14. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2025

1. Dequan FinnQB245 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 95th of 231 QBs
   0.82WAR0.36 to 1.30
2. Thomas GotkowskiQB106 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 151st of 231 QBs
   0.32WAR0.14 to 0.49
3. Jordan BrunsonRB129 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 104th of 365 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
4. Kam PerryWR82 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 120th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR−0.05 to 0.35
5. Cole WeaverWR57 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 130th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
6. Dom DziobanPK16 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 21st of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Pierse StaintonP54 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 18th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.18
8. Henry HessonQB56 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 210th of 231 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.06 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59259287th of 134Roster talent: 592, 87th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15315382nd of 134Recruiting: 153, 82nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%127th of 132Returning production: 8%, 127th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.4−3.480th of 134SP+ rating: −3.4, 80th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.17 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 WMUQ3 1:27 4th & 3 at M-OH 47, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
2. at OHIOQ3 8:15 4th & 3 at OHIO 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
3. at OHIOQ4 9:29 4th & 9 at OHIO 27, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.5 pts
4. vs WMUQ2 6:38 4th & 2 at WMU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
5. at FRESQ4 8:32 4th & 10 at FRES 28, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
6. at BUFQ3 2:46 4th & 4 at M-OH 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs WMUQ2 2:36 4th & 3 at WMU 12, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
8. at WMUQ2 7:51 4th & 4 at WMU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

72nd of 136 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

   WIS
2. L

   RUTG
3. L

   UNLV
4. W

   LIN
5. W

   NIU
6. W

   AKR
7. W

   EMU
8. W

   WMU
9. L

   OHIO
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    BUF
12. W

    BALL
13. L

    WMU
14. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2025

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+1.00
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• WISL 0-17 at WIS10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Clock +1
• RUTGL 17-45 at RUTG11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• UNLVL 38-41 vs UNLV44% → 98%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• LINW 38-0 vs LIN91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• NIUW 25-14 at NIU60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• AKRW 20-7 at AKR78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• EMUW 44-30 vs EMU78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• WMUW 26-17 vs WMU55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• OHIOL 20-24 at OHIO38% → 6%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −4
• TOLL 3-24 vs TOL26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• BUFW 37-20 at BUF48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• BALLW 45-24 vs BALL88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Clock −1
• WMUL 13-23 at WMU42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• FRESL 3-18 at FRES35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, 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.