Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.3898th
  Defense−0.0597th
• 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%96th
  Defense34.0%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3189th
  Defense+1.2534th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2898th
  Defense−0.0587th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5296th
  Defense−0.0498th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.4%93rd
  Defense38.8%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense46.8%99th
  Defense26.3%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4596th
  Defense2.3297th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%97th
  Defense28.4%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.6%98th
  Defense27.5%99th

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, 2019

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
   FAU
2. W
   CIN
3. W
   IU
4. W
   M-OH
5. W
   NEB
6. W
   MSU
7. W
   NU
8. W
   WIS
9. W
   MD
10. W
    RUTG
11. W
    PSU
12. W
    MICH
13. W
    WIS
14. L
    CLEM

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

Players, 2019

1. Justin FieldsQB303 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 46th of 228 QBs
   1.42WAR0.89 to 1.96
2. J.K. DobbinsRB219 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 8th of 349 RBs
   0.87WAR0.69 to 1.06
3. Chris OlaveWR41 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 111th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
4. K.J. HillWR51 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 153rd of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
5. Blake HaubeilPK11 plays · +0.404 pts/play · 90th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Binjimen VictorWR26 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 326th of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Austin MackWR25 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 348th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Drue ChrismanP21 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 62nd of 100 punters
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9749742nd of 130Roster talent: 974, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2952953rd of 130Recruiting: 295, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%120th of 130Returning production: 28%, 120th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +35.4+35.41st of 130SP+ rating: +35.4, 1st 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, 2019

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 0.10 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 CLEMQ4 3:07 4th & 4 at CLEM 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.2 pts
2. vs PSUQ3 2:17 4th & 2 at OSU 49, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at WISQ2 8:04 4th & 9 at OSU 26, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. at WISQ3 10:45 4th & 4 at WIS 10, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs CLEMQ3 10:39 4th & 5 at CLEM 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs CLEMQ2 1:55 4th & 3 at OSU 32, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at NUQ4 10:34 4th & 2 at OSU 48, up 35Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at RUTGQ3 4:31 4th & 10 at RUTG 34, up 42Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

36th 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

   FAU
2. W

   CIN
3. W

   IU
4. W

   M-OH
5. W

   NEB
6. W

   MSU
7. W

   NU
8. W

   WIS
9. W

   MD
10. W

    RUTG
11. W

    PSU
12. W

    MICH
13. W

    WIS
14. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2019

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+1.58
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• FAUW 45-21 vs FAU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• CINW 42-0 vs CIN83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• IUW 51-10 at IU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• M-OHW 76-5 vs M-OH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NEBW 48-7 at NEB84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• MSUW 34-10 vs MSU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• NUW 52-3 at NU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• WISW 38-7 vs WIS81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• MDW 73-14 vs MD99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• RUTGW 56-21 at RUTG100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• PSUW 28-17 vs PSU90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• MICHW 56-27 at MICH68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• WISW 34-21 at WIS84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −1
• CLEML 23-29 vs CLEM37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3

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.