Miami (OH)

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1960th
  Defense+0.1431st
• 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.
  Offense40.9%32nd
  Defense42.9%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4497th
  Defense+1.3223rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0740th
  Defense+0.0261st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4282nd
  Defense+0.3220th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%26th
  Defense48.7%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%42nd
  Defense31.6%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0344th
  Defense2.6480th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%66th
  Defense22.1%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%39th
  Defense12.5%11th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   PITT
2. W
   HC
3. L
   CIN
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   BGSU
6. W
   MASS

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

Players, 2026

1. David McCombQB100 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 54th of 192 QBs
   0.32WAR0.15 to 0.46
2. Caleb HeavnerQB75 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 147th of 192 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.03 to 0.20
3. Rodney NelsonRB50 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 139th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
4. Braylon IsomWR22 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 109th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
5. D'Shawntae JonesRB30 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Lynel Billups-WilliamsWR20 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 185th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Kellan McLaughlinPK11 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 29th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
8. Lazaro RogersRB13 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 239th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62162186th of 138Roster talent: 621, 86th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915988th of 138Recruiting: 159, 88th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%113th of 136Returning production: 14%, 113th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.4−6.498th of 138SP+ rating so far: −6.4, 98th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 CONNQ4 11:19 4th & 2 at CONN 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at CINQ4 13:51 4th & 1 at CIN 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. at MASSQ3 8:50 4th & 3 at MASS 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at MASSQ4 11:36 4th & 4 at MASS 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs BGSUQ2 3:52 4th & 2 at M-OH 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at MASSQ2 2:20 4th & 19 at MASS 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs BGSUQ1 3:34 4th & 5 at BGSU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at PITTQ1 14:06 4th & 4 at PITT 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

91st of 138 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

   PITT
2. W

   HC
3. L

   CIN
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   BGSU
6. W

   MASS

What moved it, 2026

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−0.01
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• PITTL 14-59 at PITT12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• HCW 45-7 vs HC96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• CINL 31-35 at CIN17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• CONNW 24-21 vs CONN59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• BGSUL 20-24 vs BGSU78% → 23%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• MASSW 20-19 at MASS71% → 80%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +33, 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.