East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2169th
  Defense+0.1171st
• 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.
  Offense48.4%87th
  Defense38.7%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1846th
  Defense+1.2147th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0738th
  Defense−0.0286th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3072nd
  Defense+0.2246th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%84th
  Defense43.7%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.1%92nd
  Defense29.6%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8343rd
  Defense2.4787th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%48th
  Defense20.6%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense1.6%25th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. W
   NCCU
2. L
   SC
3. W
   VT
4. W
   UNC
5. W
   SMU
6. W
   USF
7. W
   CONN
8. L
   TEM
9. L
   CIN
10. W
    TULN
11. W
    TLSA
12. L
    UCF
13. L
    FLA

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

Players, 2014

1. Shane CardenQB584 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 6th of 199 QBs
   2.57WAR1.77 to 3.58
2. Justin HardyWR137 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 4th of 469 WRs
   0.50WAR0.35 to 0.69
3. Cam WorthyWR81 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 17th of 469 WRs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.45
4. Breon AllenRB139 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 79th of 350 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.40
5. Isaiah JonesWR81 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 120th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.27
6. Worth GregoryP43 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 28th of 94 punters
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Chris HairstonRB65 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 200th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
8. Warren HarveyPK20 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 57th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.18 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 UCFQ4 6:47 4th & 1 at ECU 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
2. vs UCFQ4 0:10 4th & 19 at UCF 24, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
3. vs CONNQ4 12:43 4th & 2 at ECU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at FLAQ4 4:21 4th & 21 at FLA 38, down 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
5. at TEMQ2 12:09 4th & 13 at ECU 48, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
6. at CINQ2 4:16 4th & 3 at CIN 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at TLSAQ3 1:23 4th & 2 at ECU 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs UNCQ2 7:57 4th & 3 at UNC 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

88th of 128 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. W

   NCCU
2. L

   SC
3. W

   VT
4. W

   UNC
5. W

   SMU
6. W

   USF
7. W

   CONN
8. L

   TEM
9. L

   CIN
10. W

    TULN
11. W

    TLSA
12. L

    UCF
13. L

    FLA

What moved it, 2014

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+0.03
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.53

Game by game

• NCCUW 52-7 vs NCCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SCL 23-33 at SC17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• VTW 28-21 at VT22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• UNCW 70-41 vs UNC46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• SMUW 45-24 vs SMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• USFW 28-17 at USF82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• CONNW 31-21 vs CONN94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +13
• TEML 10-20 at TEM69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• CINL 46-54 at CIN60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• TULNW 34-6 vs TULN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• TLSAW 49-32 at TLSA89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• UCFL 30-32 vs UCF70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• FLAL 20-28 at FLA29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2

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.