East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0934th
  Defense−0.0587th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%22nd
  Defense33.0%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3178th
  Defense+1.2739th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0533rd
  Defense+0.0165th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1635th
  Defense−0.1097th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%48th
  Defense35.4%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.9%4th
  Defense29.3%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7621st
  Defense2.1197th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%27th
  Defense30.2%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%7th
  Defense20.8%92nd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 East 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
   ALA
2. L
   APP
3. W
   ODU
4. W
   NCCU
5. W
   RICE
6. L
   UAB

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

Players, 2026

1. TJ Engleman Jr.RB38 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
2. Mitch GriffisQB62 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 146th of 192 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.02 to 0.16
3. Ashton GrayRB34 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 124th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
4. Emory WilliamsQB47 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 151st of 192 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
5. Jeremiah MelvinWR19 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 211th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.06
6. Ray Ray Joseph Jr.WR22 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Michael AllenRB22 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 239th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Tomas O'HalloranP17 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 42nd of 84 punters
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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 East 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62462483rd of 138Roster talent: 624, 83rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617675th of 138Recruiting: 176, 75th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%116th of 136Returning production: 14%, 116th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.3−1.378th of 138SP+ rating so far: −1.3, 78th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 East Carolina's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.07 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 RICEQ3 1:51 4th & 2 at ECU 40, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at ODUQ4 4:36 4th & 8 at ODU 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. at ODUQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at ODU 18, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs APPQ2 1:20 4th & 10 at APP 20, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs APPQ4 0:26 4th & 3 at APP 30, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at ALAQ3 7:47 4th & 1 at ECU 26, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at ODUQ2 2:23 4th & 6 at ECU 41, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at ALAQ1 8:14 4th & 1 at ECU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

93rd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   ALA
2. L

   APP
3. W

   ODU
4. W

   NCCU
5. W

   RICE
6. L

   UAB

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at East 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−0.19
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.12
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• ALAL 10-48 at ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• APPL 24-27 vs APP64% → 5%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ODUW 20-17 at ODU42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NCCUW 42-9 vs NCCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• RICEW 28-12 vs RICE72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• UABL 17-30 at UAB59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −45, Clock −11

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

Closest call

ECU 42-38 MRSH (2021) - East Carolina dropped to a 0.6% win probability before pulling it out.