Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2796th
  Defense0.0081st
• 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.
  Offense52.3%99th
  Defense36.7%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1225th
  Defense+1.2723rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2797th
  Defense−0.0787th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3084th
  Defense+0.0770th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.4%99th
  Defense40.5%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.8%91st
  Defense29.7%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4898th
  Defense2.3295th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.9%98th
  Defense24.8%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.9%95th
  Defense21.6%98th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   IU
2. L
   OU
3. W
   ARMY
4. W
   UNLV
5. W
   RUTG
6. W
   MD
7. W
   NEB
8. W
   PSU
9. L
   IOWA
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    MICH
13. W
    WIS
14. W
    USC

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

Players, 2017

1. J.T. BarrettQB311 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 68th of 226 QBs
   1.14WAR0.68 to 1.70
2. J.K. DobbinsRB137 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 30th of 352 RBs
   0.49WAR0.40 to 0.59
3. Mike WeberRB52 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 193rd of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. Sean NuernbergerPK15 plays · +0.416 pts/play · 45th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
5. K.J. HillWR39 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Terry McLaurinWR22 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 338th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Parris CampbellWR21 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 365th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Marcus BaughTE23 plays · +0.005 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9599592nd of 130Roster talent: 959, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2942942nd of 130Recruiting: 294, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%67th of 128Returning production: 60%, 67th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +30.9+30.92nd of 128SP+ rating: +30.9, 2nd of 128 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, 2017

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 0.15 of the 0.19 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 WISQ4 5:20 4th & 1 at WIS 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.8 pts
2. at MICHQ4 2:47 4th & 3 at MICH 27, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at IUQ4 12:42 4th & 2 at IU 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at MICHQ3 13:29 4th & 1 at OSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs USCQ2 11:05 4th & 1 at OSU 35, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at IOWAQ3 11:29 4th & 4 at OSU 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at IUQ2 10:15 4th & 2 at IU 2, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at IOWAQ3 6:16 4th & 3 at OSU 27, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

70th of 130 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

   IU
2. L

   OU
3. W

   ARMY
4. W

   UNLV
5. W

   RUTG
6. W

   MD
7. W

   NEB
8. W

   PSU
9. L

   IOWA
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    MICH
13. W

    WIS
14. W

    USC

What moved it, 2017

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+0.51
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.93

Game by game

• IUW 49-21 at IU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• OUL 16-31 vs OU69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• ARMYW 38-7 vs ARMY98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UNLVW 54-21 vs UNLV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• RUTGW 56-0 at RUTG97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• MDW 62-14 vs MD97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• NEBW 56-14 at NEB95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• PSUW 39-38 vs PSU70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• IOWAL 24-55 at IOWA94% → 0%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −65, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 48-3 vs MSU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• ILLW 52-14 vs ILL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MICHW 31-20 at MICH81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• WISW 27-21 at WIS67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• USCW 24-7 vs USC76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, 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.