Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1566th
  Defense+0.0663rd
• 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.
  Offense44.9%70th
  Defense41.3%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2241st
  Defense+1.2739th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1883rd
  Defense+0.0649th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1956th
  Defense+0.1066th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%66th
  Defense47.4%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.
  Offense33.1%75th
  Defense27.6%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3290th
  Defense2.9836th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.9%98th
  Defense18.6%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%88th
  Defense14.9%36th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   RUTG
2. W
   WVU
3. L
   OSU
4. W
   GWEB
5. W
   BGSU
6. L
   BALL
7. W
   NIU
8. W
   EMU
9. W
   M-OH
10. L
    WMU
11. W
    MASS
12. W
    BUF
13. W
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2025

1. Parker NavarroQB370 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 65th of 231 QBs
   1.24WAR0.65 to 1.86
2. Sieh BanguraRB191 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 20th of 365 RBs
   0.39WAR0.30 to 0.50
3. Chase HendricksWR91 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 44th of 451 WRs
   0.24WAR0.08 to 0.38
4. Duncan BruneRB75 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 209th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
5. Rodney Harris IIWR36 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 156th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Mason WilliamsTE19 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 94th of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Jake BrunoTE12 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 168th of 213 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  470470126th of 134Roster talent: 470, 126th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117119th of 134Recruiting: 117, 119th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%18th of 132Returning production: 65%, 18th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.0−4.082nd of 134SP+ rating: −4.0, 82nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.11 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 11:00 4th & 1 at OHIO 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at EMUQ3 12:21 4th & 14 at EMU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. vs M-OHQ4 7:18 4th & 6 at OHIO 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at WMUQ4 10:29 4th & 5 at midfield, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs WVUQ4 10:08 4th & 4 at OHIO 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs NIUQ2 4:20 4th & 19 at NIU 36, up 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs WVUQ4 0:17 4th & 3 at WVU 29, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs WVUQ4 0:17 4th & 3 at WVU 29, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

36th of 136 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

   RUTG
2. W

   WVU
3. L

   OSU
4. W

   GWEB
5. W

   BGSU
6. L

   BALL
7. W

   NIU
8. W

   EMU
9. W

   M-OH
10. L

    WMU
11. W

    MASS
12. W

    BUF
13. W

    UNLV

What moved it, 2025

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+1.64
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.12
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• RUTGL 31-34 at RUTG15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• WVUW 17-10 vs WVU38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +6
• OSUL 9-37 at OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• GWEBW 52-35 vs GWEB97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• BGSUW 35-20 vs BGSU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Clock −1
• BALLL 14-20 at BALL86% → 23%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position +4
• NIUW 48-21 vs NIU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• EMUW 28-21 at EMU81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• M-OHW 24-20 vs M-OH62% → 94%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +4
• WMUL 13-17 at WMU49% → 13%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −3
• MASSW 42-14 vs MASS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BUFW 31-26 at BUF65% → 91%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3
• UNLVW 17-10 vs UNLV37% → 97%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +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.