Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2287th
  Defense−0.0185th
• 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.
  Offense49.9%94th
  Defense35.2%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1427th
  Defense+1.2231st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2798th
  Defense0.0075th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1550th
  Defense−0.0189th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.1%96th
  Defense40.5%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.
  Offense36.1%65th
  Defense26.1%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3697th
  Defense2.7066th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%80th
  Defense18.1%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense1.7%33rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Ohio State 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
   VT
2. W
   HAW
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   WMU
5. W
   IU
6. W
   MD
7. W
   PSU
8. W
   RUTG
9. W
   MINN
10. W
    ILL
11. L
    MSU
12. W
    MICH
13. W
    ND

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio State.

Players, 2015

1. J.T. BarrettQB187 plays · +0.392 pts/play · 69th of 205 QBs
   1.37WAR1.04 to 1.73
2. Ezekiel ElliottRB208 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 2nd of 333 RBs
   0.81WAR0.63 to 0.99
3. Cardale JonesQB135 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 144th of 205 QBs
   0.40WAR0.15 to 0.63
4. Cameron JohnstonP45 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 29th of 92 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
5. Michael ThomasWR51 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 199th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20
6. Jalin Marshall?40 plays · +0.094 pts/play
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
7. Braxton MillerQB22 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 197th of 205 QBs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
8. Sean NuernbergerPK1 plays · +0.316 pts/play · 114th of 115 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Ohio State'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9079073rd of 128Roster talent: 907, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2882884th of 128Recruiting: 288, 4th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%25th of 127Returning production: 83%, 25th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +29.5+29.51st of 128SP+ rating: +29.5, 1st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Ohio State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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 IUQ3 11:15 4th & 1 at OSU 16, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs NIUQ4 6:00 4th & 1 at OSU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs MSUQ4 8:43 4th & 4 at OSU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at ILLQ2 3:22 4th & 1 at OSU 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs NDQ3 3:00 4th & 2 at OSU 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at ILLQ2 8:46 4th & 1 at OSU 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at IUQ2 10:21 4th & 3 at IU 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs NIUQ3 8:27 4th & 3 at NIU 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

49th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Ohio State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   VT
2. W

   HAW
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   WMU
5. W

   IU
6. W

   MD
7. W

   PSU
8. W

   RUTG
9. W

   MINN
10. W

    ILL
11. L

    MSU
12. W

    MICH
13. W

    ND

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Ohio State'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+1.36
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.02

Game by game

• VTW 42-24 at VT83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• HAWW 38-0 vs HAW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NIUW 20-13 vs NIU98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +7, Timeouts +1
• WMUW 38-12 vs WMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IUW 34-27 at IU91% → 86%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• MDW 49-28 vs MD97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• PSUW 38-10 vs PSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• RUTGW 49-7 at RUTG93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• MINNW 28-14 vs MINN95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• ILLW 28-3 at ILL88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• MSUL 14-17 vs MSU85% → 5%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MICHW 42-13 at MICH64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• NDW 44-28 vs ND70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Ohio State's side.

Closest call

OSU 52-51 MD (2018) - Ohio State dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.