Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0626th
  Defense+0.0281st
• 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.
  Offense40.2%21st
  Defense35.8%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2980th
  Defense+1.2720th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0334th
  Defense−0.0481st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1127th
  Defense+0.0775th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%23rd
  Defense40.1%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%22nd
  Defense29.4%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8139th
  Defense2.5088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%17th
  Defense25.0%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.6%9th
  Defense26.7%97th

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, 2019

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
   FLA
2. L
   UNC
3. W
   BCU
4. W
   CMU
5. L
   VT
6. W
   UVA
7. L
   GT
8. W
   PITT
9. W
   FSU
10. W
    LOU
11. L
    FIU
12. L
    DUKE
13. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2019

1. Jarren WilliamsQB282 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 129th of 228 QBs
   0.48WAR0.07 to 0.98
2. DeeJay DallasRB107 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 110th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.46
3. Cam'Ron HarrisRB106 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 123rd of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.42
4. N'Kosi PerryQB158 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 165th of 228 QBs
   0.28WAR0.02 to 0.54
5. Lou HedleyP59 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 6th of 100 punters
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.22
6. K.J. OsbornWR70 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 149th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.23
7. Jeff ThomasWR41 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 164th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Brevin JordanTE37 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 20th of 207 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81581518th of 130Roster talent: 815, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24624618th of 130Recruiting: 246, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%91st of 130Returning production: 49%, 91st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.632nd of 130SP+ rating: +9.6, 32nd 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, 2019

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.20 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 FLAQ4 4:30 4th & 9 at FLA 30, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.5 pts
2. vs UVAQ4 10:06 4th & 3 at UVA 3, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at FSUQ4 14:55 4th & 1 at FSU 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at FIUQ3 1:52 4th & 2 at FIU 5, down 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at PITTQ2 6:56 4th & 1 at MIA 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs GTQ3 3:50 4th & 2 at MIA 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at FSUQ2 1:03 4th & 9 at FSU 26, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at FIUQ4 11:04 4th & 10 at FIU 30, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

127th 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

   FLA
2. L

   UNC
3. W

   BCU
4. W

   CMU
5. L

   VT
6. W

   UVA
7. L

   GT
8. W

   PITT
9. W

   FSU
10. W

    LOU
11. L

    FIU
12. L

    DUKE
13. L

    LT

What moved it, 2019

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−1.11
• Possession & field position+0.10
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.17
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.41

Game by game

• FLAL 20-24 at FLA26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27
• UNCL 25-28 at UNC60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +1
• BCUW 63-0 vs BCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CMUW 17-12 vs CMU97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• VTL 35-42 vs VT81% → 22%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position +5
• UVAW 17-9 vs UVA57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +2
• GTL 21-28 vs GT90% → 23%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −17
• PITTW 16-12 at PITT40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• FSUW 27-10 at FSU40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• LOUW 52-27 vs LOU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• FIUL 24-30 at FIU90% → 3%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• DUKEL 17-27 at DUKE76% → 2%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −53, Possession & field position +1
• LTL 0-14 vs LT67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2

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.