Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2995th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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
  Defense43.3%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1836th
  Defense+1.3314th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3299th
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3079th
  Defense+0.2522nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.7%98th
  Defense46.7%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense42.7%96th
  Defense37.0%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4795th
  Defense2.8457th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%90th
  Defense21.4%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%85th
  Defense20.2%93rd

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, 2018

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
   HOW
2. L
   UVA
3. L
   CIN
4. W
   MASS
5. W
   KENT
6. L
   NIU
7. W
   BGSU
8. W
   BALL
9. W
   WMU
10. L
    M-OH
11. W
    BUF
12. W
    AKR
13. W
    SDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2018

1. Nathan RourkeQB330 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 22nd of 225 QBs
   2.05WAR1.47 to 2.55
2. A.J. OuelletteRB174 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 21st of 351 RBs
   0.72WAR0.56 to 0.86
3. Maleek IronsRB92 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 116th of 351 RBs
   0.35WAR0.30 to 0.40
4. Papi WhiteWR78 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 100th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
5. Louie ZervosPK12 plays · +0.380 pts/play · 75th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Cameron OdomWR36 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 336th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
7. Andrew MeyerWR40 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 341st of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
8. Michael FarkasPK24 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 107th of 112 kickers
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  346346117th of 130Roster talent: 346, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118112th of 130Recruiting: 118, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%48th of 129Returning production: 72%, 48th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.0+4.054th of 130SP+ rating: +4.0, 54th 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 CINQ4 14:55 4th & 2 at CIN 30, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at KENTQ2 14:04 4th & 1 at OHIO 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. vs BUFQ2 10:29 4th & 3 at BUF 5, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at UVAQ1 6:06 4th & 1 at OHIO 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs HOWQ2 9:31 4th & 1 at OHIO 16, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs SDSUQ3 11:33 4th & 4 at SDSU 9, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at CINQ3 13:36 4th & 4 at OHIO 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at UVAQ1 12:51 4th & 1 at OHIO 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

40th 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.

1. W

   HOW
2. L

   UVA
3. L

   CIN
4. W

   MASS
5. W

   KENT
6. L

   NIU
7. W

   BGSU
8. W

   BALL
9. W

   WMU
10. L

    M-OH
11. W

    BUF
12. W

    AKR
13. W

    SDSU

What moved it, 2018

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+1.44
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.66

Game by game

• HOWW 38-32 vs HOW97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• UVAL 31-45 at UVA35% → 2%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +1
• CINL 30-34 at CIN26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 58-42 vs MASS75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 27-26 at KENT77% → 82%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +30, Clock +3
• NIUL 21-24 at NIU35% → 8%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• BGSUW 49-14 vs BGSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• BALLW 52-14 vs BALL72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• WMUW 59-14 at WMU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• M-OHL 28-30 at M-OH63% → 17%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• BUFW 52-17 vs BUF58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +41
• AKRW 49-28 vs AKR95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• SDSUW 27-0 vs SDSU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −1

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.