Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0943rd
  Defense+0.0374th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%33rd
  Defense39.4%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1531st
  Defense+1.2526th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0751st
  Defense+0.0265th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1240th
  Defense+0.0477th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%30th
  Defense43.3%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%39th
  Defense31.9%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1082nd
  Defense2.5483rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%83rd
  Defense22.0%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%72nd
  Defense3.1%94th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 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
   IDHO
2. W
   MRSH
3. W
   SELA
4. L
   MINN
5. W
   AKR
6. W
   M-OH
7. L
   WMU
8. L
   BUF
9. L
   BGSU
10. W
    KENT
11. W
    BALL
12. W
    NIU
13. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2015

1. Derrius VickQB255 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 82nd of 205 QBs
   1.12WAR0.73 to 1.55
2. JD SpragueQB120 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 135th of 205 QBs
   0.49WAR0.30 to 0.69
3. A.J. OuelletteRB138 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 55th of 333 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.45
4. Sebastian SmithWR77 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 76th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.33
5. Jordan ReidWR43 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 113th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
6. Mitch BonnstetterP58 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 17th of 92 punters
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
7. Daz'mond PattersonRB104 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 163rd of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
8. Josiah YazdaniPK14 plays · +0.435 pts/play · 63rd of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16

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'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  331331115th of 128Roster talent: 331, 115th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11711798th of 128Recruiting: 117, 98th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%32nd of 127Returning production: 79%, 32nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.5−0.579th of 128SP+ rating: −0.5, 79th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.27 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 MINNQ4 0:07 4th & 8 at MINN 41, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.4 pts
2. at APPQ4 6:10 4th & 9 at APP 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
3. at NIUQ4 9:07 4th & 3 at NIU 31, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs MRSHQ4 11:00 4th & 3 at OHIO 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at NIUQ4 4:15 4th & 1 at OHIO 49, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs MRSHQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at OHIO 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at NIUQ3 6:36 4th & 4 at NIU 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at NIUQ3 10:54 4th & 8 at NIU 37, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

34th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Ohio's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   IDHO
2. W

   MRSH
3. W

   SELA
4. L

   MINN
5. W

   AKR
6. W

   M-OH
7. L

   WMU
8. L

   BUF
9. L

   BGSU
10. W

    KENT
11. W

    BALL
12. W

    NIU
13. L

    APP

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Ohio'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+0.87
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• IDHOW 45-28 at IDHO73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• MRSHW 21-10 vs MRSH45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• SELAW 35-14 vs SELA89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• MINNL 24-27 at MINN21% → 14%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• AKRW 14-12 at AKR66% → 90%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• M-OHW 34-3 vs M-OH89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• WMUL 14-49 vs WMU59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• BUFL 17-41 at BUF55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −49
• BGSUL 24-62 at BGSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• KENTW 27-0 vs KENT72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• BALLW 48-31 vs BALL73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −1
• NIUW 26-21 at NIU20% → 97%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• APPL 29-31 at APP26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27

Points of win probability, from Ohio's side.

Closest call

OHIO 30-27 WYO (2022) - Ohio dropped to a 10.5% win probability before pulling it out.