East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1149th
  Defense+0.246th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%46th
  Defense46.3%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2258th
  Defense+1.2527th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0331st
  Defense+0.218th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1750th
  Defense+0.327th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%39th
  Defense51.3%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.0%62nd
  Defense34.2%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0663rd
  Defense3.426th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%16th
  Defense16.2%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%28th
  Defense12.4%5th

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, 2016

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
   WCU
2. W
   NCSU
3. L
   SC
4. L
   VT
5. L
   UCF
6. L
   USF
7. L
   CIN
8. W
   CONN
9. L
   TLSA
10. L
    SMU
11. L
    NAVY
12. L
    TEM

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

Players, 2016

1. Philip NelsonQB344 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 64th of 218 QBs
   1.23WAR0.66 to 1.78
2. James SummersRB152 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 31st of 347 RBs
   0.62WAR0.43 to 0.81
3. Gardner MinshewQB132 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 127th of 218 QBs
   0.53WAR0.31 to 0.73
4. Zay JonesWR156 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 6th of 417 WRs
   0.45WAR0.20 to 0.69
5. Jimmy WilliamsWR69 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 91st of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.28
6. Davis PlowmanPK19 plays · +0.357 pts/play · 40th of 116 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Anthony ScottRB73 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 232nd of 347 RBs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
8. Worth GregoryP40 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 53rd of 82 punters
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44244282nd of 128Roster talent: 442, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13713780th of 128Recruiting: 137, 80th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%101st of 128Returning production: 47%, 101st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.0−9.0100th of 128SP+ rating: −9.0, 100th 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, 2016

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.05 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 3:48 4th & 3 at UCF 6, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs NCSUQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at ECU 40, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at TEMQ3 7:07 4th & 3 at TEM 24, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at TLSAQ4 8:56 4th & 16 at TLSA 31, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs SMUQ3 5:09 4th & 3 at ECU 39, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at SCQ3 5:07 4th & 4 at SC 8, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs SMUQ2 0:17 4th & 1 at SMU 26, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CONNQ1 4:08 4th & 7 at CONN 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

116th 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

   WCU
2. W

   NCSU
3. L

   SC
4. L

   VT
5. L

   UCF
6. L

   USF
7. L

   CIN
8. W

   CONN
9. L

   TLSA
10. L

    SMU
11. L

    NAVY
12. L

    TEM

What moved it, 2016

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−2.18
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• WCUW 52-7 vs WCU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• NCSUW 33-30 vs NCSU40% → 85%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• SCL 15-20 at SC31% → 6%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −1
• VTL 17-54 at VT22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24
• UCFL 29-47 vs UCF58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −56, Clock −7
• USFL 22-38 at USF9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• CINL 19-31 at CIN43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• CONNW 41-3 vs CONN67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• TLSAL 24-45 at TLSA24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• SMUL 31-55 vs SMU59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• NAVYL 31-66 vs NAVY35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• TEML 10-37 at TEM9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12

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.