Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2693rd
  Defense+0.1922nd
• 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.
  Offense49.9%94th
  Defense44.2%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.2150th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2698th
  Defense+0.1326th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2770th
  Defense+0.2621st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.3%91st
  Defense48.2%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.0%88th
  Defense36.1%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4295th
  Defense3.1024th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%93rd
  Defense17.7%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%75th
  Defense18.2%25th

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, 2019

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
   URI
2. L
   PITT
3. L
   MRSH
4. L
   UL
5. W
   BUF
6. L
   NIU
7. W
   KENT
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   M-OH
10. L
    WMU
11. W
    BGSU
12. W
    AKR
13. W
    NEV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2019

1. Nathan RourkeQB405 plays · +0.352 pts/play · 2nd of 228 QBs
   2.67WAR1.98 to 3.44
2. O'Shaan AllisonRB128 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 87th of 349 RBs
   0.43WAR0.32 to 0.53
3. De'Montre TuggleRB109 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 123rd of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.41
4. Isiah CoxWR51 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 84th of 439 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
5. Julian RossRB58 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 233rd of 349 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Louie ZervosPK17 plays · +0.417 pts/play · 42nd of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
7. Michael FarkasPK45 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 103rd of 114 kickers
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
8. Ryan LuehrmanTE38 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 38th of 207 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  337337118th of 130Roster talent: 337, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  120120113th of 130Recruiting: 120, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%94th of 130Returning production: 46%, 94th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.7+3.749th of 130SP+ rating: +3.7, 49th 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, 2019

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 0.12 of the 0.19 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 BALLQ2 5:00 4th & 1 at BALL 5, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs M-OHQ4 1:51 4th & 23 at OHIO 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.5 pts
3. vs WMUQ2 5:21 4th & 3 at WMU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at BALLQ4 14:09 4th & 4 at BALL 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at NEVQ4 2:45 4th & 1 at OHIO 34, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at BUFQ4 6:41 4th & 8 at BUF 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at PITTQ2 6:55 4th & 3 at PITT 6, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at BALLQ2 10:20 4th & 2 at BALL 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

105th 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

   URI
2. L

   PITT
3. L

   MRSH
4. L

   UL
5. W

   BUF
6. L

   NIU
7. W

   KENT
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   M-OH
10. L

    WMU
11. W

    BGSU
12. W

    AKR
13. W

    NEV

What moved it, 2019

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−0.47
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• URIW 41-20 vs URI95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• PITTL 10-20 at PITT37% → 8%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −1
• MRSHL 31-33 at MRSH32% → 12%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2
• ULL 25-45 vs UL52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• BUFW 21-20 at BUF60% → 89%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +16
• NIUL 36-39 vs NIU60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• KENTW 45-38 vs KENT66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• BALLW 34-21 at BALL42% → 98%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• M-OHL 21-24 vs M-OH70% → 13%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• WMUL 34-37 vs WMU50% → 12%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −18
• BGSUW 66-24 at BGSU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• AKRW 52-3 at AKR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• NEVW 30-21 at NEV73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3

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.