East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0417th
  Defense+0.1627th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%6th
  Defense40.2%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3390th
  Defense+1.395th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense+0.0174th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0828th
  Defense+0.3310th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.5%1st
  Defense42.9%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%69th
  Defense35.3%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.488th
  Defense2.4890th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.6%9th
  Defense24.0%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%9th
  Defense19.2%86th

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, 2018

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
   NCAT
2. W
   UNC
3. L
   USF
4. W
   ODU
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   TULN
10. W
    CONN
11. L
    CIN
12. L
    NCSU

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

Players, 2018

1. Holton AhlersQB287 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 69th of 225 QBs
   1.22WAR0.79 to 1.72
2. Reid HerringQB198 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 108th of 225 QBs
   0.72WAR0.42 to 1.01
3. Trevon BrownWR108 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 20th of 434 WRs
   0.27WAR0.06 to 0.47
4. Anthony ScottRB76 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 209th of 351 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.25
5. Darius Pinnix Jr.RB59 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 233rd of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.20
6. Hussein HoweRB62 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 250th of 351 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Jake VerityPK14 plays · +0.454 pts/play · 38th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
8. Deondre FarrierWR35 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 245th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43443485th of 130Roster talent: 434, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14114183rd of 130Recruiting: 141, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%120th of 129Returning production: 27%, 120th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.9−14.9110th of 130SP+ rating: −14.9, 110th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.13 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 ODUQ4 3:51 4th & 1 at ECU 28, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.6 pts
2. vs NCATQ4 4:10 4th & 5 at NCAT 22, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. at USFQ3 9:58 4th & 2 at USF 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at USFQ3 8:44 4th & 2 at ECU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs NCATQ4 7:05 4th & 3 at ECU 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs ODUQ4 10:39 4th & 4 at ECU 19, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at USFQ4 5:06 4th & 10 at USF 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at USFQ4 14:55 4th & 5 at USF 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

83rd 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

   NCAT
2. W

   UNC
3. L

   USF
4. W

   ODU
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   TULN
10. W

    CONN
11. L

    CIN
12. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.87
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• NCATL 23-28 vs NCAT83% → 19%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −2
• UNCW 41-19 vs UNC11% → 100%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +59, Timeouts +1
• USFL 13-20 at USF10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• ODUW 37-35 vs ODU67% → 84%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +3
• TEML 6-49 at TEM23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• HOUL 20-42 vs HOU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UCFL 10-37 vs UCF6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• MEML 41-59 vs MEM22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• TULNL 18-24 at TULN20% → 12%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• CONNW 55-21 vs CONN86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• CINL 6-56 at CIN11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• NCSUL 3-58 at NCSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6

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.