Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1870th
  Defense+0.0953rd
• 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.
  Offense43.2%61st
  Defense38.6%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3380th
  Defense+1.2839th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1260th
  Defense+0.0467th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3479th
  Defense+0.1767th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%57th
  Defense43.9%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%53rd
  Defense27.7%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3278th
  Defense2.6094th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%55th
  Defense23.6%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%75th
  Defense17.7%69th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   M-OH
2. W
   TA&M
3. W
   BCU
4. W
   TEM
5. L
   GT
6. L
   UNC
7. W
   CLEM
8. W
   UVA
9. L
   NCSU
10. L
    FSU
11. L
    LOU
12. W
    BC
13. L
    RUTG

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2023

1. Tyler Van DykeQB285 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 78th of 250 QBs
   1.16WAR0.60 to 1.84
2. Emory WilliamsQB57 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 172nd of 250 QBs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.40
3. Colbie YoungWR48 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 59th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Jacolby GeorgeWR57 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 71st of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.35
5. Henry Parrish Jr.RB93 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 151st of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
6. Mark Fletcher Jr.RB100 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 154th of 383 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.25
7. Jacurri BrownQB36 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 200th of 250 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.23
8. Don ChaneyRB71 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 182nd of 383 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86086012th of 130Roster talent: 860, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26026011th of 130Recruiting: 260, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%27th of 128Returning production: 72%, 27th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.628th of 130SP+ rating: +9.6, 28th 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, 2023

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 0.11 of the 0.17 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 UVAQ4 9:26 4th & 2 at UVA 32, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs LOUQ2 2:26 4th & 1 at MIA 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs UVAQ4 12:59 4th & 2 at MIA 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs LOUQ3 9:04 4th & 3 at MIA 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs CLEMQ3 12:49 4th & 1 at MIA 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs RUTGQ4 0:43 4th & 4 at RUTG 17, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. at NCSUQ3 10:26 4th & 3 at NCSU 27, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UVAQ2 10:16 4th & 2 at MIA 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

122nd of 133 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

   M-OH
2. W

   TA&M
3. W

   BCU
4. W

   TEM
5. L

   GT
6. L

   UNC
7. W

   CLEM
8. W

   UVA
9. L

   NCSU
10. L

    FSU
11. L

    LOU
12. W

    BC
13. L

    RUTG

What moved it, 2023

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−1.30
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.22
• Timeouts−0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• M-OHW 38-3 vs M-OH89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• TA&MW 48-33 vs TA&M45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• BCUW 48-7 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TEMW 41-7 at TEM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• GTL 20-23 vs GT92% → 20%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UNCL 31-41 at UNC45% → 5%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position +2
• CLEMW 28-20 vs CLEM39% → 87%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −21
• UVAW 29-26 vs UVA92% → 32%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −17
• NCSUL 6-20 at NCSU73% → 2%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −2
• FSUL 20-27 at FSU17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 31-38 vs LOU60% → 11%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −47, Clock −4
• BCW 45-20 at BC82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• RUTGL 24-31 vs RUTG52% → 5%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, 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.