Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1260th
  Defense−0.0284th
• 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.
  Offense42.4%44th
  Defense40.1%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3088th
  Defense+1.1566th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1171st
  Defense−0.0584th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1548th
  Defense+0.0185th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%49th
  Defense43.6%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
  Defense33.5%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8950th
  Defense2.5979th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%31st
  Defense23.6%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%14th
  Defense19.9%86th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   TOL
3. W
   DUKE
4. W
   FSU
5. W
   GT
6. W
   SYR
7. W
   UNC
8. W
   VT
9. W
   ND
10. W
    UVA
11. L
    PITT
12. L
    CLEM
13. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2017

1. Malik RosierQB460 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 26th of 226 QBs
   1.75WAR0.96 to 2.53
2. Travis HomerRB150 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 93rd of 352 RBs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.43
3. Michael BadgleyPK19 plays · +0.420 pts/play · 20th of 110 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
4. Braxton BerriosWR68 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 98th of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
5. Ahmmon RichardsWR50 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 103rd of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Mark WaltonRB42 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 244th of 352 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Zach FeaglesP67 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 59th of 95 punters
   0.03WAR−0.10 to 0.14
8. Christopher Herndon IVTE52 plays · +0.020 pts/play · 37th of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.05 to 0.08

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74974920th of 130Roster talent: 749, 20th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23823819th of 130Recruiting: 238, 19th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%112th of 128Returning production: 31%, 112th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.4+17.418th of 128SP+ rating: +17.4, 18th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.32 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 GTQ4 0:42 4th & 10 at GT 43, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.5 pts
2. vs UVAQ4 8:48 4th & 1 at MIA 14, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
3. vs NDQ2 2:47 4th & 1 at ND 40, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs UVAQ3 0:21 4th & 2 at UVA 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at UNCQ3 9:52 4th & 1 at UNC 4, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at UNCQ3 0:59 4th & 13 at UNC 37, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at DUKEQ3 0:51 4th & 6 at DUKE 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs WISQ3 13:12 4th & 2 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

23rd of 130 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

   TOL
3. W

   DUKE
4. W

   FSU
5. W

   GT
6. W

   SYR
7. W

   UNC
8. W

   VT
9. W

   ND
10. W

    UVA
11. L

    PITT
12. L

    CLEM
13. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2017

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+1.81
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• BCUW 41-13 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TOLW 52-30 vs TOL82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• DUKEW 31-6 at DUKE62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• FSUW 24-20 at FSU54% → 93%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• GTW 25-24 vs GT70% → 94%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −1
• SYRW 27-19 vs SYR87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• UNCW 24-19 at UNC92% → 95%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• VTW 28-10 vs VT59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −1
• NDW 41-8 vs ND40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• UVAW 44-28 vs UVA90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15
• PITTL 14-24 at PITT81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• CLEML 3-38 at CLEM22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• WISL 24-34 vs WIS34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −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.