Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0530th
  Defense+0.0856th
• 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.
  Offense44.2%62nd
  Defense41.6%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.118th
  Defense+1.2645th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0332nd
  Defense+0.0658th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1221st
  Defense+0.1762nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%67th
  Defense45.2%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%60th
  Defense34.3%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0545th
  Defense2.8679th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%27th
  Defense19.4%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%29th
  Defense21.1%95th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USM
3. L
   TA&M
4. L
   MTSU
5. L
   UNC
6. W
   VT
7. L
   DUKE
8. W
   UVA
9. L
   FSU
10. W
    GT
11. L
    CLEM
12. L
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2022

1. Tyler Van DykeQB247 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 68th of 234 QBs
   1.09WAR0.67 to 1.56
2. Henry Parrish Jr.RB117 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 81st of 384 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.44
3. Jacurri BrownQB69 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 153rd of 234 QBs
   0.29WAR0.15 to 0.42
4. Jaylan KnightonRB70 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 199th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Will MalloryTE39 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 21st of 214 TEs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
6. Jake GarciaQB80 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 194th of 234 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.06 to 0.31
7. Brashard SmithRB34 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 241st of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
8. Colbie YoungWR31 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 208th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85585513th of 129Roster talent: 855, 13th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24424417th of 129Recruiting: 244, 17th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%44th of 128Returning production: 68%, 44th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.7−2.775th of 129SP+ rating: −2.7, 75th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 UVAQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at UVA 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at UVAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at UVA 20, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at UVAQ2 13:31 4th & 2 at UVA 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UVAQ4 7:59 4th & 5 at MIA 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at GTQ3 4:50 4th & 4 at MIA 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at TA&MQ3 4:04 4th & 4 at TA&M 4, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs DUKEQ2 3:46 4th & 2 at MIA 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at GTQ4 13:03 4th & 4 at MIA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

126th of 131 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

   USM
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   MTSU
5. L

   UNC
6. W

   VT
7. L

   DUKE
8. W

   UVA
9. L

   FSU
10. W

    GT
11. L

    CLEM
12. L

    PITT

What moved it, 2022

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−2.00
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.73

Game by game

• BCUW 70-13 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• USMW 30-7 vs USM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• TA&ML 9-17 at TA&M30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• MTSUL 31-45 vs MTSU96% → 1%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −95: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• UNCL 24-27 vs UNC63% → 6%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• VTW 20-14 at VT76% → 91%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −1
• DUKEL 21-45 vs DUKE80% → 0%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −65, Clock −3
• UVAW 14-12 at UVA59% → 57%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +14, Clock +3
• FSUL 3-45 vs FSU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• GTW 35-14 at GT49% → 100%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• CLEML 10-40 at CLEM11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• PITTL 16-42 vs PITT48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −51, 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.