Ohio

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1961st
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense47.6%75th
  Defense42.4%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1110th
  Defense+1.2934th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2178th
  Defense+0.0842nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1532nd
  Defense+0.3912th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%79th
  Defense43.9%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%55th
  Defense38.8%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6298th
  Defense2.7761st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.6%99th
  Defense19.5%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%59th
  Defense15.8%49th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   NEB
2. W
   JXST
3. L
   USA
4. W
   STO
5. W
   KENT
6. W
   CMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ohio.

Players, 2026

1. Matt VezzaQB66 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 108th of 192 QBs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.28
2. Nick PoulosQB73 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 124th of 192 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.23
3. Riley NeerWR33 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 26th of 364 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
4. Duncan BruneRB59 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 63rd of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
5. Victor RosaRB46 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
6. Will HryszkoPK8 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 20th of 82 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Levi DavisQB16 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 177th of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Dom DorwartWR19 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  523523129th of 138Roster talent: 523, 129th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  147147108th of 138Recruiting: 147, 108th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%39th of 136Returning production: 63%, 39th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.7101st of 138SP+ rating so far: −6.7, 101st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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. vs JXSTQ4 14:57 4th & 4 at JXST 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
2. at NEBQ3 10:02 4th & 4 at NEB 27, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at KENTQ4 6:47 4th & 5 at OHIO 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at USAQ4 2:47 4th & 10 at OHIO 10, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs CMUQ3 4:05 4th & 1 at OHIO 36, up 31Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs CMUQ4 5:08 4th & 2 at OHIO 43, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at NEBQ2 10:38 4th & 6 at NEB 27, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs JXSTQ1 11:27 4th & 4 at OHIO 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

14th of 138 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

   NEB
2. W

   JXST
3. L

   USA
4. W

   STO
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   CMU

What moved it, 2026

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+0.87
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.16
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• NEBL 21-49 at NEB7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• JXSTW 29-27 vs JXST55% → 82%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −18
• USAL 36-41 at USA28% → 17%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +2
• STOW 35-7 vs STO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• KENTW 13-10 at KENT58% → 94%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• CMUW 31-14 vs CMU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, 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.