Coastal Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1140th
  Defense+0.1432nd
• 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.
  Offense40.8%28th
  Defense43.6%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3587th
  Defense+1.2938th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1260th
  Defense+0.1429th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.1648th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%34th
  Defense50.2%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%27th
  Defense30.2%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0554th
  Defense3.398th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%32nd
  Defense12.5%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%66th
  Defense14.2%21st

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   JXST
2. W
   W&M
3. W
   TEM
4. L
   UVA
5. W
   ODU
6. L
   JMU
7. L
   UL
8. L
   TROY
9. W
   APP
10. L
    MRSH
11. L
    GASO
12. W
    GAST
13. L
    UTSA

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

Players, 2024

1. Ethan VaskoQB312 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 54th of 232 QBs
   1.54WAR0.98 to 2.06
2. Braydon BennettRB138 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 94th of 373 RBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.40
3. Jameson TuckerWR27 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 105th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
4. Christian WashingtonRB64 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 216th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
5. Kade HensleyPK9 plays · +0.353 pts/play · 84th of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
6. Noah KimQB29 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 220th of 232 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
7. Kendall KarrTE11 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 65th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Senika McKieWR17 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 315th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55855892nd of 131Roster talent: 558, 92nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015083rd of 131Recruiting: 150, 83rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%104th of 130Returning production: 27%, 104th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.9−6.996th of 131SP+ rating: −6.9, 96th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.31 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. at UTSAQ2 8:16 4th & 4 at UTSA 13, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−8.7 pts
2. at UTSAQ3 9:44 4th & 13 at UTSA 22, up 24Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
3. at UTSAQ2 12:21 4th & 16 at UTSA 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
4. vs ULQ4 5:04 4th & 4 at CCU 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. at UTSAQ1 1:13 4th & 3 at UTSA 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at TROYQ3 2:20 4th & 22 at TROY 38, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
7. at UTSAQ3 6:20 4th & 7 at UTSA 28, up 27Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
8. at TEMQ2 1:55 4th & 1 at CCU 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

85th of 134 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. W

   JXST
2. W

   W&M
3. W

   TEM
4. L

   UVA
5. W

   ODU
6. L

   JMU
7. L

   UL
8. L

   TROY
9. W

   APP
10. L

    MRSH
11. L

    GASO
12. W

    GAST
13. L

    UTSA

What moved it, 2024

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+0.32
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.01

Game by game

• JXSTW 55-27 at JXST42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• W&MW 40-21 vs W&M86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• TEMW 28-20 at TEM88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• UVAL 24-43 vs UVA38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• ODUW 45-37 vs ODU63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• JMUL 7-39 at JMU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −37
• ULL 24-34 vs UL32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• TROYL 24-38 at TROY62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −3
• APPW 38-24 vs APP39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2
• MRSHL 19-31 at MRSH31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• GASOL 6-26 vs GASO55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• GASTW 48-27 at GAST52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• UTSAL 15-44 at UTSA40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2

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.