Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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.
  Offense0.0010th
  Defense−0.0695th
• 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.
  Offense39.0%13th
  Defense36.8%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3188th
  Defense+1.1375th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0849th
  Defense−0.0688th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.075th
  Defense−0.0491st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.4%9th
  Defense40.4%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.6%43rd
  Defense30.5%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9249th
  Defense2.4493rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%47th
  Defense28.0%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense24.2%99th

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, 2018

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
   LSU
2. W
   SAV
3. W
   TOL
4. W
   FIU
5. W
   UNC
6. W
   FSU
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   BC
9. L
   DUKE
10. L
    GT
11. W
    VT
12. W
    PITT
13. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2018

1. Malik RosierQB152 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 119th of 225 QBs
   0.64WAR0.43 to 0.86
2. N'Kosi PerryQB196 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 142nd of 225 QBs
   0.49WAR0.11 to 0.85
3. Travis HomerRB142 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 100th of 351 RBs
   0.38WAR0.24 to 0.51
4. DeeJay DallasRB89 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 128th of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.26 to 0.42
5. Jeff ThomasWR41 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 129th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Lawrence CagerWR35 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 210th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
7. Brevin JordanTE28 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 48th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.08
8. Zach FeaglesP22 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 78th of 91 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75475420th of 130Roster talent: 754, 20th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24424418th of 130Recruiting: 244, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%48th of 129Returning production: 72%, 48th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.7+12.727th of 130SP+ rating: +12.7, 27th of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 FSUQ4 8:36 4th & 1 at FSU 47, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. at LSUQ2 7:22 4th & 1 at MIA 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at VTQ3 7:19 4th & 6 at VT 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs FSUQ2 3:30 4th & 1 at MIA 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs DUKEQ3 12:58 4th & 3 at MIA 27, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at BCQ1 1:08 4th & 2 at MIA 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at GTQ3 5:20 4th & 4 at GT 47, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at VTQ2 14:49 4th & 2 at MIA 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

130th 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. L

   LSU
2. W

   SAV
3. W

   TOL
4. W

   FIU
5. W

   UNC
6. W

   FSU
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   BC
9. L

   DUKE
10. L

    GT
11. W

    VT
12. W

    PITT
13. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2018

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−1.57
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.16

Game by game

• LSUL 17-33 at LSU66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −2
• SAVW 77-0 vs SAV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• TOLW 49-24 at TOL83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• FIUW 31-17 vs FIU96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• UNCW 47-10 vs UNC89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• FSUW 28-27 vs FSU83% → 93%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• UVAL 13-16 at UVA75% → 4%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• BCL 14-27 at BC65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2
• DUKEL 12-20 vs DUKE78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• GTL 21-27 at GT51% → 3%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• VTW 38-14 at VT69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• PITTW 24-3 vs PITT73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30
• WISL 3-35 at WIS59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53

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.