Ohio’s third-down conversion rate with Nick Poulos and without Nick Poulos
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Ohio was 1.0 percentage points over with Nick Poulos and 4.9 percentage points over without Nick Poulos over its last 25 games, 3 games against 19. The plain averages are 45.4% and 47.3%, a difference of 1.9%. All 3 neutral-site games were without Nick Poulos. All 3 games after a bye were without Nick Poulos. Both bowl and playoff games were without Nick Poulos.
Nick Poulos, quarterback: 824 passing yards, 109 pass attempts and 63 completions in 9 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A −3.9% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Nick Poulos vs without Nick Poulos is about what you’d expect.
A −1.9% difference in third-down conversion rate with Nick Poulos vs without Nick Poulos is about what you’d expect.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2024 | @ Toledo | W | 41.2% | 43.2% | |
| Nov 29, 2024 | vs Ball State | W | 70.0% | 47.9% | |
| Dec 7, 2024 | vs Miami (OH) (neutral) | W | 75.0% | 43.1% | |
| Dec 20, 2024 | vs Jacksonville State (neutral) | W | 41.7% | 45.1% | |
| Aug 28, 2025 | @ Rutgers | L | 50.0% | 35.5% | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | vs West Virginia | W | 35.7% | 37.8% | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | @ Ohio State | L | 20.0% | 31.0% | |
| Sep 20, 2025 | vsGGardner-Webb | W | 55.6% | — | |
| Sep 27, 2025 | vs Bowling Green | W | 40.0% | 41.2% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | @Ball State | L | 50.0% | 42.6% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | vs Northern Illinois | W | 69.2% | 44.5% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | @ Eastern Michigan | W | 40.0% | 46.6% | |
| Nov 4, 2025 | vsMiami (OH) | W | 50.0% | 46.5% | |
| Nov 11, 2025 | @ Western Michigan | L | 27.3% | 38.5% | |
| Nov 18, 2025 | vs UMass | W | 42.9% | 49.7% | |
| Nov 28, 2025 | @ Buffalo | W | 41.2% | 39.2% | |
| Dec 23, 2025 | vs UNLV (neutral) | W | 36.4% | 34.6% | |
| Sep 5, 2026 | @ Nebraska | L | 40.0% | 32.4% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vsJacksonville State | W | 52.9% | 46.7% | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | @ South Alabama | L | 63.6% | 38.3% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | vsSStonehill | W | 50.0% | — | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | @ Kent State | W | 40.0% | 42.5% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | vs Central Michigan | W | 64.3% | 46.8% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | @SSacramento State | W | 50.0% | — | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | vsEastern Michigan | W | 27.3% | 49.4% |
Method
- Expected is an offense and a defense a team, fit over every game of its season between two teams in the table with the game being read left out, plus 0.6% in 2024, plus 0.7% in 2025, plus 1.4% in 2026 for the home team (the edge the fit finds once strength is in), nothing at a neutral site.
- Each expected number is then fit to the season’s games: a game bears out about 50% in 2024, 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The shuffle keeps the season’s shape: the games are cut in two where one date leaves the least variance, each game is read against its stretch, and the sides are shuffled only inside each stretch.
- Gardner-Webb, Stonehill, Sacramento State have no other game in the table, so those games have no expected number and sit out the second figure.
- Who played is read from the schools’ box scores’ participation lists for 21 of these 25 games; in the other 4 a player is counted as in them when the box score has a stat for him.
- With him means he was the team’s quarterback that game, at least half of its pass attempts; a game he left early or came into late reads as without him.