Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1672nd
  Defense−0.0898th
• 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.
  Offense47.5%86th
  Defense36.7%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.056th
  Defense+1.1570th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1440th
  Defense−0.0796th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.3%91st
  Defense39.7%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%58th
  Defense31.0%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3392nd
  Defense2.2796th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.5%94th
  Defense27.6%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%79th
  Defense19.5%87th

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, 2016

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
   BGSU
2. W
   TLSA
3. W
   OU
4. W
   RUTG
5. W
   IU
6. W
   WIS
7. L
   PSU
8. W
   NU
9. W
   NEB
10. W
    MD
11. W
    MSU
12. W
    MICH
13. L
    CLEM

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

Players, 2016

1. J.T. BarrettQB381 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 30th of 218 QBs
   1.80WAR1.24 to 2.36
2. Curtis Samuel?123 plays · +0.185 pts/play
   0.43WAR0.32 to 0.52
3. Mike WeberRB121 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 73rd of 347 RBs
   0.42WAR0.30 to 0.55
4. Cameron JohnstonP46 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 14th of 82 punters
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
5. Noah BrownWR33 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Tyler DurbinPK14 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 75th of 116 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Marcus BaughTE31 plays · +0.009 pts/play · 104th of 195 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.05 to 0.05

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9029025th of 128Roster talent: 902, 5th 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.
  24%24%122nd of 128Returning production: 24%, 122nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.4+22.410th of 128SP+ rating: +22.4, 10th 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.12 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 MICHQ4 7:01 4th & 2 at MICH 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs NUQ4 13:43 4th & 7 at NU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs MICHQ3 9:06 4th & 6 at OSU 19, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
4. vs IUQ4 14:48 4th & 1 at OSU 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at PSUQ4 1:02 4th & 23 at OSU 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at MSUQ3 12:05 4th & 2 at OSU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs NUQ3 12:23 4th & 3 at NU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at OUQ2 7:01 4th & 2 at OSU 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

61st 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

   BGSU
2. W

   TLSA
3. W

   OU
4. W

   RUTG
5. W

   IU
6. W

   WIS
7. L

   PSU
8. W

   NU
9. W

   NEB
10. W

    MD
11. W

    MSU
12. W

    MICH
13. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2016

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+1.05
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.30

Game by game

• BGSUW 77-10 vs BGSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• TLSAW 48-3 vs TLSA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• OUW 45-24 at OU54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• RUTGW 58-0 vs RUTG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• IUW 38-17 vs IU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• WISW 30-23 at WIS76% → 77%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +16
• PSUL 21-24 at PSU89% → 5%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• NUW 24-20 vs NU94% → 95%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• NEBW 62-3 vs NEB82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• MDW 62-3 at MD95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• MSUW 17-16 at MSU93% → 94%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• MICHW 30-27 vs MICH66% → 85%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −20
• CLEML 0-31 at CLEM50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −47

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.