East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0633rd
  Defense+0.381st
• 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.
  Offense41.1%32nd
  Defense51.9%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2574th
  Defense+1.375th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.142nd
  Defense+0.251st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2061st
  Defense+0.561st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.1%11th
  Defense53.9%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%83rd
  Defense46.0%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.394th
  Defense3.343rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.9%2nd
  Defense14.9%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense10.1%1st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   JMU
2. L
   WVU
3. L
   VT
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   USF
6. L
   TEM
7. L
   UCF
8. W
   BYU
9. L
   HOU
10. L
    TULN
11. W
    CIN
12. L
    MEM

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

Players, 2017

1. Gardner MinshewQB183 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 79th of 226 QBs
   0.95WAR0.63 to 1.30
2. Thomas SirkQB216 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 91st of 226 QBs
   0.84WAR0.44 to 1.27
3. Trevon BrownWR65 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 35th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Davon GraysonWR62 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 41st of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
5. Hussein HoweRB76 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 208th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Jake VerityPK18 plays · +0.371 pts/play · 42nd of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Jimmy WilliamsWR44 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 156th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
8. Quay JohnsonWR45 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 359th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47147174th of 130Roster talent: 471, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13913979th of 130Recruiting: 139, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%95th of 128Returning production: 44%, 95th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.0−14.0111th of 128SP+ rating: −14.0, 111th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.09 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 CONNQ4 2:34 4th & 3 at ECU 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
2. vs JMUQ4 13:17 4th & 9 at JMU 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at CONNQ2 1:13 4th & 5 at CONN 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs VTQ2 12:01 4th & 1 at ECU 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs JMUQ4 2:34 4th & 7 at JMU 21, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TEMQ3 2:04 4th & 3 at ECU 32, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at HOUQ2 8:40 4th & 4 at HOU 5, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs TEMQ1 1:43 4th & 6 at TEM 32, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

47th of 130 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

   JMU
2. L

   WVU
3. L

   VT
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   USF
6. L

   TEM
7. L

   UCF
8. W

   BYU
9. L

   HOU
10. L

    TULN
11. W

    CIN
12. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2017

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−0.30
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.75

Game by game

• JMUL 14-34 vs JMU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• WVUL 20-56 at WVU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• VTL 17-64 vs VT5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• CONNW 41-38 at CONN35% → 77%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• USFL 31-61 vs USF7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• TEML 10-34 vs TEM42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• UCFL 21-63 at UCF2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• BYUW 33-17 vs BYU37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2
• HOUL 27-52 at HOU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• TULNL 24-31 vs TULN36% → 23%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −18
• CINW 48-20 vs CIN34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +57
• MEML 13-70 at MEM3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5

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.