Miami (OH) · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Miami (OH) ranks No. 86 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -3.75 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 85; this update moves it -1 places and -0.87 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -0.798. Prior-season margin: +2.316.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0046; EPA/play net: +0.1462; success-rate net: +0.0539; explosiveness net: +0.0542. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 2 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Miami (OH) beat Holy Cross by 38 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +24.57; the result was +13.43 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Cincinnati on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 437 versus 181; Net passing yards: 236 versus 141; Rushing yards: 201 versus 40; First downs: 25 versus 10

Completions–attempts: 14-15 versus 13-25; Rush attempts: 39 versus 19; Yards per pass: 15.7 versus 5.6; Yards per rush: 5.2 versus 2.1

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 7 points and recorded 181 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 4 versus 3; Third downs: 5-8 versus 3-10; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 0-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 3-25 versus 4-19; Possession time: 38:19 versus 21:41

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 7.0–5.0 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 85 Georgia Southern (-3.73); No. 87 Georgia State (-3.81).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.