Coastal Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1456th
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense46.5%79th
  Defense46.1%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1219th
  Defense+1.2341st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0955th
  Defense+0.1228th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2257th
  Defense+0.2429th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.8%78th
  Defense50.2%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%67th
  Defense35.6%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9556th
  Defense3.0133rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%78th
  Defense19.1%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%89th
  Defense19.2%39th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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 Coastal Carolina 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
   EMU
2. W
   KU
3. W
   NORF
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   APP
6. L
   GAST
7. L
   GASO
8. W
   TROY
9. L
   UL
10. L
    ARST
11. L
    ULM
12. W
    TXST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Coastal Carolina.

Players, 2019

1. CJ MarableRB209 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 22nd of 349 RBs
   0.72WAR0.56 to 0.89
2. Fred PaytonQB193 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 100th of 228 QBs
   0.72WAR0.42 to 1.06
3. Bryce CarpenterQB195 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 119th of 228 QBs
   0.57WAR0.23 to 0.95
4. Jacqez HairstonRB60 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 185th of 349 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.26
5. Massimo BiscardiPK16 plays · +0.394 pts/play · 58th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Jaivon HeilighWR55 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 192nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Isaiah LikelyTE38 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 21st of 207 TEs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
8. Ky'Jon TylerWR31 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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 Coastal Carolina'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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  306306125th of 130Roster talent: 306, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  110110124th of 130Recruiting: 110, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%73rd of 130Returning production: 56%, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.8−12.8113th of 130SP+ rating: −12.8, 113th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2019

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 Coastal Carolina's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 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 GASTQ2 10:40 4th & 1 at CCU 25, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs EMUQ4 3:04 4th & 9 at EMU 9, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs EMUQ2 0:01 4th & 7 at EMU 35, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs TXSTQ2 5:31 4th & 2 at CCU 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs TROYQ2 10:10 4th & 2 at CCU 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs GASTQ2 12:18 4th & 4 at GAST 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs NORFQ2 9:12 4th & 15 at NORF 35, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at ULMQ1 6:15 4th & 9 at ULM 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

81st of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Coastal Carolina's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   EMU
2. W

   KU
3. W

   NORF
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   APP
6. L

   GAST
7. L

   GASO
8. W

   TROY
9. L

   UL
10. L

    ARST
11. L

    ULM
12. W

    TXST

What moved it, 2019

Every game starts at Coastal Carolina'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−1.01
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• EMUL 23-30 vs EMU37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• KUW 12-7 at KU32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• NORFW 46-7 vs NORF94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MASSW 62-28 at MASS89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• APPL 37-56 at APP14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19
• GASTL 21-31 vs GAST58% → 7%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• GASOL 27-30 at GASO33% → 14%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +19
• TROYW 36-35 vs TROY44% → 69%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +5, Timeouts +3
• ULL 7-48 vs UL17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• ARSTL 27-28 at ARST19% → 8%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• ULML 42-45 at ULM34% → 10%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• TXSTW 24-21 vs TXST71% → 95%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28

Points of win probability, from Coastal Carolina's side.

Closest call

CCU 27-21 USA (2021) - Coastal Carolina dropped to a 8.4% win probability before pulling it out.