Miami

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1979th
  Defense−0.0490th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%84th
  Defense36.6%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.159th
  Defense+1.2736th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0853rd
  Defense−0.0589th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3993rd
  Defense+0.0487th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%78th
  Defense41.3%93rd
• 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%68th
  Defense28.1%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1375th
  Defense2.5890th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%89th
  Defense20.4%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.1%91st
  Defense18.9%91st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ND
2. W
   BCU
3. W
   USF
4. W
   FLA
5. W
   FSU
6. L
   LOU
7. W
   STAN
8. L
   SMU
9. W
   SYR
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    VT
12. W
    PITT
13. W
    TA&M
14. W
    OSU
15. W
    MISS
16. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Miami.

Players, 2025

1. Carson BeckQB423 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 15th of 231 QBs
   1.99WAR1.16 to 2.73
2. Mark Fletcher Jr.RB200 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 17th of 365 RBs
   0.40WAR0.29 to 0.52
3. Malachi ToneyWR122 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 14th of 451 WRs
   0.34WAR0.11 to 0.55
4. CharMar BrownRB103 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 127th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.24
5. Keelan MarionWR71 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 90th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.29
6. CJ DanielsWR53 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 106th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.25
7. Carter DavisPK20 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 74th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
8. Elija LoftonTE25 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 85th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  87587515th of 134Roster talent: 875, 15th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26726711th of 134Recruiting: 267, 11th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%118th of 132Returning production: 13%, 118th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.7+20.79th of 134SP+ rating: +20.7, 9th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.18 of the 0.24 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 SMUQ4 9:34 4th & 2 at SMU 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at IUQ3 5:04 4th & 1 at MIA 16, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at OSUQ3 3:01 4th & 2 at OSU 32, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at TA&MQ3 10:34 4th & 3 at TA&M 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs NDQ4 9:42 4th & 2 at ND 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs NDQ4 1:04 4th & 3 at ND 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs NDQ3 5:11 4th & 1 at MIA 23, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at TA&MQ2 0:03 4th & 2 at TA&M 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

14th of 136 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

   ND
2. W

   BCU
3. W

   USF
4. W

   FLA
5. W

   FSU
6. L

   LOU
7. W

   STAN
8. L

   SMU
9. W

   SYR
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    VT
12. W

    PITT
13. W

    TA&M
14. W

    OSU
15. W

    MISS
16. L

    IU

What moved it, 2025

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+2.35
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.19
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.66

Game by game

• NDW 27-24 vs ND40% → 89%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +3
• BCUW 45-3 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• USFW 49-12 vs USF88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +14
• FLAW 26-7 vs FLA67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• FSUW 28-22 at FSU58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• LOUL 21-24 vs LOU77% → 6%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −7
• STANW 42-7 vs STAN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• SMUL 20-26 at SMU69% → 15%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +26
• SYRW 38-10 vs SYR96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• NCSUW 41-7 vs NCSU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• VTW 34-17 at VT87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• PITTW 38-7 at PITT65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• TA&MW 10-3 at TA&M35% → 95%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• OSUW 24-14 at OSU27% → 96%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• MISSW 31-27 at MISS58% → 77%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• IUL 21-27 at IU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −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.