Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1980th
  Defense+0.0282nd
• 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.
  Offense42.9%42nd
  Defense39.6%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2779th
  Defense+1.1761st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0846th
  Defense−0.0485th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3081st
  Defense+0.0777th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%42nd
  Defense44.4%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%45th
  Defense31.6%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7119th
  Defense2.4988th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.7%6th
  Defense26.0%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%79th
  Defense19.9%90th

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, 2016

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
   FAMU
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   APP
4. W
   GT
5. L
   FSU
6. L
   UNC
7. L
   VT
8. L
   ND
9. W
   PITT
10. W
    UVA
11. W
    NCSU
12. W
    DUKE
13. W
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2016

1. Brad KaayaQB411 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 15th of 218 QBs
   2.12WAR1.50 to 2.78
2. Stacy ColeyWR85 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 22nd of 417 WRs
   0.31WAR0.18 to 0.45
3. Mark WaltonRB200 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 135th of 347 RBs
   0.28WAR0.09 to 0.47
4. Joseph YearbyRB85 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 143rd of 347 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.34
5. Justin VogelP57 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 6th of 82 punters
   0.25WAR0.13 to 0.37
6. Ahmmon RichardsWR63 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 47th of 417 WRs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.32
7. Michael BadgleyPK24 plays · +0.479 pts/play · 13th of 116 kickers
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.29
8. David NjokuTE63 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 18th of 195 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.09 to 0.15

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74674619th of 128Roster talent: 746, 19th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23423420th of 128Recruiting: 234, 20th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%34th of 128Returning production: 79%, 34th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.6+18.612th of 128SP+ rating: +18.6, 12th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 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 NDQ4 6:49 4th & 4 at ND 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. vs UNCQ3 6:03 4th & 1 at MIA 29, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs PITTQ4 11:38 4th & 1 at PITT 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs PITTQ3 10:39 4th & 1 at MIA 29, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs UNCQ4 6:54 4th & 4 at UNC 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at VTQ4 5:51 4th & 20 at VT 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs WVUQ1 0:18 4th & 1 at MIA 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs FSUQ2 1:16 4th & 2 at FSU 34, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

68th 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

   FAMU
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   APP
4. W

   GT
5. L

   FSU
6. L

   UNC
7. L

   VT
8. L

   ND
9. W

   PITT
10. W

    UVA
11. W

    NCSU
12. W

    DUKE
13. W

    WVU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.93
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• FAMUW 70-3 vs FAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• FAUW 38-10 vs FAU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• APPW 45-10 at APP68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• GTW 35-21 at GT67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• FSUL 19-20 vs FSU54% → 19%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −39, Clock −4
• UNCL 13-20 vs UNC74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• VTL 16-37 at VT41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• NDL 27-30 at ND48% → 15%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• PITTW 51-28 vs PITT70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Clock −1
• UVAW 34-14 at UVA80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• NCSUW 27-13 at NCSU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• DUKEW 40-21 vs DUKE84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• WVUW 31-14 vs WVU58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −1

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.