Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2480th
  Defense+0.1074th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%64th
  Defense41.5%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3493rd
  Defense+1.0988th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1673rd
  Defense+0.0953rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3479th
  Defense+0.1472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%55th
  Defense46.9%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%77th
  Defense29.5%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1072nd
  Defense3.1320th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%62nd
  Defense17.2%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%52nd
  Defense1.4%13th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   LOU
2. W
   FAMU
3. W
   ARST
4. L
   NEB
5. W
   DUKE
6. L
   GT
7. W
   CIN
8. W
   VT
9. W
   UNC
10. L
    FSU
11. L
    UVA
12. L
    PITT
13. L
    SC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2014

1. Brad KaayaQB326 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 41st of 199 QBs
   1.80WAR1.29 to 2.38
2. Duke Johnson Jr.?265 plays · +0.150 pts/play
   0.74WAR0.51 to 0.95
3. Phillip DorsettWR55 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 73rd of 469 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.29
4. Michael BadgleyPK15 plays · +0.431 pts/play · 40th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Joseph YearbyRB50 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 194th of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Justin VogelP42 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 43rd of 94 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Stacy ColeyWR40 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 232nd of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
8. Malcolm LewisWR34 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 357th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 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 DUKEQ3 10:18 4th & 19 at DUKE 28, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
2. at SCQ2 8:10 4th & 2 at MIA 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at SCQ3 13:04 4th & 3 at MIA 49, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs DUKEQ2 1:28 4th & 1 at MIA 18, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs FSUQ2 1:42 4th & 3 at FSU 12, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at SCQ2 0:25 4th & 12 at SC 40, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at VTQ3 9:27 4th & 2 at MIA 47, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at VTQ2 6:52 4th & 6 at VT 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

126th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Miami's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   LOU
2. W

   FAMU
3. W

   ARST
4. L

   NEB
5. W

   DUKE
6. L

   GT
7. W

   CIN
8. W

   VT
9. W

   UNC
10. L

    FSU
11. L

    UVA
12. L

    PITT
13. L

    SC

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Miami'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−1.64
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• LOUL 13-31 at LOU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position +3
• FAMUW 41-7 vs FAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ARSTW 41-20 vs ARST90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• NEBL 31-41 at NEB30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• DUKEW 22-10 vs DUKE66% → 98%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• GTL 17-28 at GT52% → 2%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• CINW 55-34 vs CIN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• VTW 30-6 at VT46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UNCW 47-20 vs UNC79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• FSUL 26-30 vs FSU40% → 10%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• UVAL 13-30 at UVA68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −54, Clock +1
• PITTL 23-35 vs PITT76% → 2%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• SCL 21-24 at SC58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Miami's side.

Closest call

MIA 39-38 CAL (2024) - Miami dropped to a 2.1% win probability before pulling it out.