Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2591st
  Defense+0.0760th
• 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.
  Offense50.1%94th
  Defense39.9%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1733rd
  Defense+1.3018th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0331st
  Defense+0.0939th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4697th
  Defense+0.0868th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.0%92nd
  Defense46.7%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.0%89th
  Defense26.7%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9657th
  Defense2.5186th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%61st
  Defense25.2%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.6%93rd
  Defense19.4%88th

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, 2018

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
   ORST
2. W
   RUTG
3. W
   TCU
4. W
   TULN
5. W
   PSU
6. W
   IU
7. W
   MINN
8. L
   PUR
9. W
   NEB
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    MD
12. W
    MICH
13. W
    NU
14. W
    WASH

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

Players, 2018

1. Dwayne HaskinsQB458 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 2nd of 225 QBs
   2.86WAR2.14 to 3.58
2. J.K. DobbinsRB192 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 20th of 351 RBs
   0.72WAR0.57 to 0.87
3. Mike WeberRB124 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 81st of 351 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.51
4. Johnnie DixonWR45 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 80th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Parris CampbellWR85 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 100th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.27
6. K.J. HillWR65 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 144th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
7. Drue ChrismanP50 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 17th of 91 punters
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
8. Terry McLaurinWR33 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 168th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9849841st of 130Roster talent: 984, 1st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2992992nd of 130Recruiting: 299, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%75th of 129Returning production: 60%, 75th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.1+24.16th of 130SP+ rating: +24.1, 6th 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, 2018

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.26 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 MICHQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at MICH 1, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at TCUQ3 8:56 4th & 1 at OSU 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. at MDQ3 1:52 4th & 4 at MD 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
4. vs MICHQ3 8:25 4th & 2 at MICH 2, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at PURQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at OSU 29, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
6. at MSUQ3 0:56 4th & 6 at MSU 40, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
7. at MSUQ3 12:14 4th & 4 at MSU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
8. at MSUQ3 4:05 4th & 2 at OSU 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

19th 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

   ORST
2. W

   RUTG
3. W

   TCU
4. W

   TULN
5. W

   PSU
6. W

   IU
7. W

   MINN
8. L

   PUR
9. W

   NEB
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    MD
12. W

    MICH
13. W

    NU
14. W

    WASH

What moved it, 2018

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+1.88
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.62

Game by game

• ORSTW 77-31 vs ORST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• RUTGW 52-3 vs RUTG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TCUW 40-28 at TCU84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• TULNW 49-6 vs TULN99% → 51%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −5, Clock −1
• PSUW 27-26 at PSU61% → 92%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• IUW 49-26 vs IU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• MINNW 30-14 vs MINN97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8
• PURL 20-49 at PUR82% → 0%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −64, Clock −1
• NEBW 36-31 vs NEB90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 26-6 at MSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• MDW 52-51 at MD85% → 56%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −29: Timeouts +17, Scoreboard +16
• MICHW 62-39 vs MICH41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +1
• NUW 45-24 vs NU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• WASHW 28-23 vs WASH68% → 95%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2

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.