Ohio State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2893rd
  Defense−0.0394th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%83rd
  Defense35.9%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2648th
  Defense+1.1490th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1361st
  Defense+0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4895th
  Defense−0.0698th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%82nd
  Defense40.6%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%76th
  Defense26.2%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1861st
  Defense3.0357th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%62nd
  Defense15.4%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%60th
  Defense16.4%52nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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. W
   YSU
3. W
   WKU
4. W
   ND
5. W
   MD
6. W
   PUR
7. W
   PSU
8. W
   WIS
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    MINN
12. L
    MICH
13. L
    MIZ

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

Players, 2023

1. Kyle McCordQB250 plays · +0.325 pts/play · 45th of 250 QBs
   1.52WAR0.98 to 2.13
2. TreVeyon HendersonRB120 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 112th of 383 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
3. Marvin Harrison Jr.WR53 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 64th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Chip TrayanumRB64 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 207th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
5. Emeka EgbukaWR43 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 172nd of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20
6. Cade StoverTE25 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 58th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Jesse MircoP36 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 56th of 103 punters
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Miyan WilliamsRB27 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 279th of 383 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9759753rd of 130Roster talent: 975, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2992993rd of 130Recruiting: 299, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%40th of 128Returning production: 64%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.2+25.24th of 130SP+ rating: +25.2, 4th 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, 2023

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 0.04 of the 0.09 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 MICHQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at MICH 34, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs MDQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at OSU 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs MDQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at OSU 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at RUTGQ4 5:52 4th & 2 at midfield, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs PSUQ2 2:43 4th & 8 at PSU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs PSUQ4 8:59 4th & 4 at PSU 19, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at IUQ3 6:42 4th & 4 at IU 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at NDQ4 4:12 4th & 1 at ND 11, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

53rd of 133 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. W

   YSU
3. W

   WKU
4. W

   ND
5. W

   MD
6. W

   PUR
7. W

   PSU
8. W

   WIS
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    MINN
12. L

    MICH
13. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2023

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+0.70
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• IUW 23-3 at IU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +9
• YSUW 35-7 vs YSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WKUW 63-10 vs WKU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NDW 17-14 at ND63% → 85%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Clock +4
• MDW 37-17 vs MD89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• PURW 41-7 at PUR91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• PSUW 20-12 vs PSU64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35
• WISW 24-10 at WIS86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• RUTGW 35-16 at RUTG91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16
• MSUW 38-3 vs MSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• MINNW 37-3 vs MINN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MICHL 24-30 at MICH42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• MIZL 3-14 vs MIZ66% → 2%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −59, 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.