Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.0760th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%39th
  Defense46.7%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2263rd
  Defense+1.0099th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0316th
  Defense+0.1513th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3181st
  Defense+0.0184th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%22nd
  Defense53.0%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%66th
  Defense32.7%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.352nd
  Defense3.315th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%21st
  Defense14.4%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%88th
  Defense2.6%83rd

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, 2015

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. W
   BCU
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   NEB
4. L
   CIN
5. L
   FSU
6. W
   VT
7. L
   CLEM
8. W
   DUKE
9. W
   UVA
10. L
    UNC
11. W
    GT
12. W
    PITT
13. L
    WSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2015

1. Brad KaayaQB343 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 35th of 205 QBs
   1.87WAR1.31 to 2.49
2. Joseph YearbyRB197 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 24th of 333 RBs
   0.47WAR0.33 to 0.61
3. Michael BadgleyPK25 plays · +0.431 pts/play · 7th of 115 kickers
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.29
4. Rashawn ScottWR70 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 100th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.28
5. Malik RosierQB40 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 180th of 205 QBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
6. Herb WatersWR55 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 136th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.22
7. Mark WaltonRB128 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 168th of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.22
8. Justin VogelP50 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 31st of 92 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77377317th of 128Roster talent: 773, 17th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23623618th of 128Recruiting: 236, 18th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%60th of 127Returning production: 65%, 60th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.035th of 128SP+ rating: +11.0, 35th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 UVAQ3 3:08 4th & 2 at UVA 11, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs NEBQ4 2:39 4th & 1 at MIA 46, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at FAUQ2 1:06 4th & 1 at FAU 7, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at PITTQ2 13:36 4th & 4 at PITT 39, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at CINQ3 0:58 4th & 6 at CIN 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at PITTQ4 0:11 4th & 2 at PITT 40, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at CINQ2 7:27 4th & 1 at MIA 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs VTQ3 0:58 4th & 4 at VT 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

37th 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. W

   BCU
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   NEB
4. L

   CIN
5. L

   FSU
6. W

   VT
7. L

   CLEM
8. W

   DUKE
9. W

   UVA
10. L

    UNC
11. W

    GT
12. W

    PITT
13. L

    WSU

What moved it, 2015

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+0.67
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.26
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• BCUW 45-0 vs BCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FAUW 44-20 at FAU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• NEBW 36-33 vs NEB65% → 79%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −22
• CINL 23-34 at CIN63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• FSUL 24-29 at FSU28% → 4%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• VTW 30-20 vs VT67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• CLEML 0-58 vs CLEM37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• DUKEW 30-27 at DUKE34% → 86%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• UVAW 27-21 vs UVA74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• UNCL 21-59 at UNC19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• GTW 38-21 vs GT59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +38
• PITTW 29-24 at PITT33% → 91%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• WSUL 14-20 at WSU50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −38, 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.