Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2187th
  Defense+0.0178th
• 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.
  Offense48.7%95th
  Defense38.1%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1844th
  Defense+1.1953rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense−0.0890th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1445th
  Defense+0.0771st
• 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%97th
  Defense42.5%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%56th
  Defense31.0%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2791st
  Defense2.5284th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%47th
  Defense24.1%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense19.8%85th

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, 2017

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
   HAMP
2. L
   PUR
3. W
   KU
4. W
   EMU
5. W
   MASS
6. L
   CMU
7. W
   BGSU
8. W
   KENT
9. W
   M-OH
10. W
    TOL
11. L
    AKR
12. L
    BUF
13. W
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2017

1. Nathan RourkeQB348 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 31st of 226 QBs
   1.65WAR1.02 to 2.39
2. A.J. OuelletteRB171 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 22nd of 352 RBs
   0.56WAR0.41 to 0.69
3. Dorian BrownRB81 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 142nd of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.31
4. Louie ZervosPK14 plays · +0.544 pts/play · 24th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
5. Papi WhiteWR48 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 234th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
6. Brendan CopeWR46 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 242nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Andrew MeyerWR51 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Michael FarkasPK43 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 96th of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR−0.04 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  326326113th of 130Roster talent: 326, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116107th of 130Recruiting: 116, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%109th of 128Returning production: 34%, 109th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.3+3.360th of 128SP+ rating: +3.3, 60th of 128 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, 2017

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.27 of the 0.32 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 EMUQ4 1:50 4th & 3 at EMU 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs CMUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at OHIO 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. at EMUQ3 4:40 4th & 1 at OHIO 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
4. at BGSUQ3 7:54 4th & 1 at OHIO 18, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
5. at AKRQ2 6:14 4th & 1 at AKR 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. at BUFQ4 2:12 4th & 12 at BUF 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
7. at AKRQ3 1:33 4th & 2 at OHIO 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
8. at BUFQ2 11:19 4th & 7 at BUF 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

32nd of 130 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   HAMP
2. L

   PUR
3. W

   KU
4. W

   EMU
5. W

   MASS
6. L

   CMU
7. W

   BGSU
8. W

   KENT
9. W

   M-OH
10. W

    TOL
11. L

    AKR
12. L

    BUF
13. W

    UAB

What moved it, 2017

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+1.65
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.92

Game by game

• HAMPW 59-0 vs HAMP98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• KUW 42-30 vs KU69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −1
• EMUW 27-20 at EMU43% → 77%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +20
• MASSW 58-50 at MASS57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• CMUL 23-26 vs CMU75% → 15%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• BGSUW 48-30 at BGSU71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• KENTW 48-3 vs KENT86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• M-OHW 45-28 vs M-OH63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• TOLW 38-10 vs TOL38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• AKRL 34-37 at AKR82% → 5%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• BUFL 24-31 at BUF68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• UABW 41-6 vs UAB67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34

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.