Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0730th
  Defense+0.0281st
• 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.
  Offense41.0%26th
  Defense40.8%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.1185th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense−0.0587th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1439th
  Defense+0.1165th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%22nd
  Defense46.2%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%50th
  Defense30.8%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6513th
  Defense2.4291st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%15th
  Defense24.8%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%41st
  Defense19.7%88th

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, 2016

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. L
   TXST
2. W
   KU
3. L
   TENN
4. W
   GWEB
5. W
   M-OH
6. W
   BGSU
7. L
   EMU
8. W
   KENT
9. W
   TOL
10. W
    BUF
11. L
    CMU
12. W
    AKR
13. L
    WMU
14. L
    TROY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2016

1. Greg WindhamQB329 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 72nd of 218 QBs
   1.17WAR0.63 to 1.69
2. Quinton MaxwellQB197 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 125th of 218 QBs
   0.55WAR0.19 to 0.91
3. Dorian BrownRB156 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 84th of 347 RBs
   0.38WAR0.22 to 0.57
4. Jordan ReidWR77 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 29th of 417 WRs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.42
5. Louie ZervosPK30 plays · +0.505 pts/play · 2nd of 116 kickers
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.37
6. Michael FarkasPK64 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 5th of 116 kickers
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.37
7. Maleek IronsRB106 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 155th of 347 RBs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.32
8. Sebastian SmithWR83 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 50th of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.36

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  373373107th of 128Roster talent: 373, 107th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115106th of 128Recruiting: 115, 106th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%80th of 128Returning production: 59%, 80th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.1−2.175th of 128SP+ rating: −2.1, 75th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.24 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 KENTQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at OHIO 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at M-OHQ4 11:56 4th & 2 at M-OH 20, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs EMUQ3 2:39 4th & 1 at OHIO 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs AKRQ4 2:59 4th & 4 at AKR 6, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at TROYQ3 11:45 4th & 3 at TROY 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at TROYQ4 10:02 4th & 2 at TROY 29, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs EMUQ2 0:40 4th & 6 at EMU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. at TOLQ4 2:31 4th & 5 at OHIO 47, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

59th 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. L

   TXST
2. W

   KU
3. L

   TENN
4. W

   GWEB
5. W

   M-OH
6. W

   BGSU
7. L

   EMU
8. W

   KENT
9. W

   TOL
10. W

    BUF
11. L

    CMU
12. W

    AKR
13. L

    WMU
14. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2016

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+0.71
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.23
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• TXSTL 54-56 vs TXST89% → 25%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −17
• KUW 37-21 at KU63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• TENNL 19-28 at TENN3% → 4%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −9
• GWEBW 37-21 vs GWEB95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10
• M-OHW 17-7 at M-OH55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• BGSUW 30-24 vs BGSU86% → 95%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −1
• EMUL 20-27 vs EMU75% → 9%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −53, Clock −1
• KENTW 14-10 at KENT60% → 91%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• TOLW 31-26 at TOL12% → 88%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• BUFW 34-10 vs BUF90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• CMUL 20-27 at CMU42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• AKRW 9-3 vs AKR69% → 95%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• WMUL 23-29 vs WMU11% → 6%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• TROYL 23-28 at TROY35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2

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.