Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.3699th
  Defense0.0088th
• 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.
  Offense52.8%98th
  Defense35.6%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2867th
  Defense+1.432nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2595th
  Defense−0.0287th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4899th
  Defense+0.0886th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense58.4%98th
  Defense41.4%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%77th
  Defense23.9%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6098th
  Defense2.5198th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%72nd
  Defense21.9%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.9%92nd
  Defense18.7%83rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ND
2. W
   ARST
3. W
   TOL
4. W
   WIS
5. W
   RUTG
6. W
   MSU
7. W
   IOWA
8. W
   PSU
9. W
   NU
10. W
    IU
11. W
    MD
12. L
    MICH
13. L
    UGA

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

Players, 2022

1. C.J. StroudQB249 plays · +0.389 pts/play · 33rd of 234 QBs
   1.81WAR1.32 to 2.39
2. Marvin Harrison Jr.WR64 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 61st of 455 WRs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.31
3. Emeka EgbukaWR61 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 91st of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.27
4. Miyan WilliamsRB47 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 200th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. TreVeyon HendersonRB59 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 212th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Noah RugglesPK15 plays · +0.356 pts/play · 23rd of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Julian FlemingWR26 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 329th of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Jesse MircoP26 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 68th of 102 punters
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9839833rd of 129Roster talent: 983, 3rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2922924th of 129Recruiting: 292, 4th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%29th of 128Returning production: 75%, 29th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +31.1+31.13rd of 129SP+ rating: +31.1, 3rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.14 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 PSUQ3 0:10 4th & 2 at PSU 22, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs MICHQ4 7:23 4th & 4 at MICH 9, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at UGAQ4 8:51 4th & 1 at OSU 34, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs MICHQ3 8:58 4th & 3 at OSU 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs NDQ3 8:36 4th & 2 at OSU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at NUQ4 8:11 4th & 2 at OSU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs NDQ2 8:42 4th & 3 at ND 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at MDQ2 1:21 4th & 2 at OSU 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

87th of 131 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

   ND
2. W

   ARST
3. W

   TOL
4. W

   WIS
5. W

   RUTG
6. W

   MSU
7. W

   IOWA
8. W

   PSU
9. W

   NU
10. W

    IU
11. W

    MD
12. L

    MICH
13. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2022

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−0.04
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• NDW 21-10 vs ND89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• ARSTW 45-12 vs ARST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TOLW 77-21 vs TOL98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WISW 52-21 vs WIS91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• RUTGW 49-10 vs RUTG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSUW 49-20 at MSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• IOWAW 54-10 vs IOWA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• PSUW 44-31 at PSU86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• NUW 21-7 at NU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +5
• IUW 56-14 vs IU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MDW 43-30 at MD96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• MICHL 23-45 vs MICH75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −66, Clock −3
• UGAL 41-42 at UGA37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +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.