East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1155th
  Defense+0.1145th
• 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.
  Offense44.2%61st
  Defense43.2%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2260th
  Defense+1.0888th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0334th
  Defense+0.0931st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1857th
  Defense+0.1354th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%62nd
  Defense47.8%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%55th
  Defense32.4%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.479th
  Defense3.1116th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.2%4th
  Defense13.8%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense1.3%6th

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, 2015

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
   TOW
2. L
   FLA
3. L
   NAVY
4. W
   VT
5. W
   SMU
6. L
   BYU
7. W
   TLSA
8. L
   TEM
9. L
   CONN
10. L
    USF
11. W
    UCF
12. L
    CIN

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

Players, 2015

1. Blake KempQB328 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 50th of 205 QBs
   1.67WAR1.14 to 2.27
2. Chris HairstonRB157 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 92nd of 333 RBs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.40
3. James SummersRB73 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 103rd of 333 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.31
4. Isaiah JonesWR97 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 99th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.04 to 0.32
5. Trevon BrownWR57 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 107th of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
6. Worth GregoryP49 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 22nd of 92 punters
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. Anthony ScottRB33 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 232nd of 333 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jimmy WilliamsWR17 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 362nd of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40440487th of 128Roster talent: 404, 87th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13213280th of 128Recruiting: 132, 80th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%125th of 127Returning production: 19%, 125th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.5−0.579th of 128SP+ rating: −0.5, 79th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 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 VTQ3 0:00 4th & 1 at ECU 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs VTQ3 10:09 4th & 12 at VT 26, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. at SMUQ3 2:23 4th & 2 at ECU 49, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs TEMQ3 8:59 4th & 3 at TEM 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at SMUQ3 11:49 4th & 6 at SMU 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs CINQ3 7:28 4th & 15 at CIN 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs TLSAQ2 1:13 4th & 2 at TLSA 6, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs CINQ1 2:42 4th & 2 at midfield, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

97th 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

   TOW
2. L

   FLA
3. L

   NAVY
4. W

   VT
5. W

   SMU
6. L

   BYU
7. W

   TLSA
8. L

   TEM
9. L

   CONN
10. L

    USF
11. W

    UCF
12. L

    CIN

What moved it, 2015

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−1.15
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• TOWW 28-20 vs TOW97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8
• FLAL 24-31 at FLA13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• NAVYL 21-45 at NAVY39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• VTW 35-28 vs VT23% → 93%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• SMUW 49-23 at SMU59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• BYUL 38-45 at BYU23% → 9%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 30-17 vs TLSA69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• TEML 14-24 vs TEM49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• CONNL 13-31 at CONN67% → 2%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• USFL 17-22 vs USF53% → 12%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UCFW 44-7 at UCF83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• CINL 16-19 vs CIN31% → 6%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −39, Clock −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.