Ohio · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Ohio ranks No. 94 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -5.12 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 76; this update moves it -18 places and -3.75 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: -2.037. Prior-season margin: +4.313.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0209; EPA/play net: +0.0000; success-rate net: +0.0000; explosiveness net: +0.0000. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 0 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

Ohio beat Jacksonville State by 2 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +3.74; the result was -1.74 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 South Alabama on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 262 versus 447; Net passing yards: 97 versus 286; Rushing yards: 165 versus 161; First downs: 17 versus 22

Completions–attempts: 13-20 versus 20-26; Rush attempts: 46 versus 46; Yards per pass: 4.9 versus 11.0; Yards per rush: 3.6 versus 3.5

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 27 points and recorded 447 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 2; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 4; Third downs: 9-17 versus 9-15; Fourth downs: 1-1 versus 1-2

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 3-25 versus 5-40; Possession time: 31:35 versus 28:25

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 6.7–5.3 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. 93 Louisiana (-5.00); No. 95 Wisconsin (-5.17).

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.