East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1040th
  Defense+0.237th
• 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.
  Offense42.4%41st
  Defense46.8%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1737th
  Defense+1.3310th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.1613th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3183rd
  Defense+0.3212th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%35th
  Defense51.9%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%55th
  Defense35.0%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5512th
  Defense3.0035th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.9%4th
  Defense19.3%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.8%8th
  Defense17.9%22nd

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, 2019

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
   NCSU
2. W
   GWEB
3. L
   NAVY
4. W
   W&M
5. W
   ODU
6. L
   TEM
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   USF
9. L
   CIN
10. L
    SMU
11. W
    CONN
12. L
    TLSA

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

Players, 2019

1. Holton AhlersQB344 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 42nd of 228 QBs
   1.45WAR0.96 to 2.05
2. Tyler SneadWR64 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 75th of 439 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.26
3. Demetrius MauneyS68 plays · +0.139 pts/play
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
4. C.J. JohnsonWR59 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 91st of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Blake ProehlWR50 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 117th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Jake VerityPK16 plays · +0.501 pts/play · 30th of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
7. Darius Pinnix Jr.RB46 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 237th of 349 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
8. Deondre FarrierWR22 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 331st of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46846885th of 130Roster talent: 468, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14914980th of 130Recruiting: 149, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%22nd of 130Returning production: 80%, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.0−14.0116th of 130SP+ rating: −14.0, 116th 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, 2019

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 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 ODUQ4 0:01 4th & 17 at ECU 43, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.6 pts
2. at CONNQ3 3:54 4th & 1 at CONN 29, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs CINQ3 4:20 4th & 3 at CIN 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs TEMQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at ECU 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs USFQ2 15:00 4th & 4 at USF 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs W&MQ2 6:10 4th & 2 at W&M 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs TLSAQ3 2:08 4th & 11 at TLSA 21, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at NCSUQ3 12:58 4th & 2 at ECU 28, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

96th 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

   NCSU
2. W

   GWEB
3. L

   NAVY
4. W

   W&M
5. W

   ODU
6. L

   TEM
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   USF
9. L

   CIN
10. L

    SMU
11. W

    CONN
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2019

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−1.18
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• NCSUL 6-34 at NCSU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• GWEBW 48-9 vs GWEB98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NAVYL 10-42 at NAVY34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36
• W&MW 19-7 vs W&M88% → 98%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• ODUW 24-21 at ODU49% → 93%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• TEML 17-27 vs TEM24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• UCFL 28-41 at UCF2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −6
• USFL 20-45 vs USF49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• CINL 43-46 vs CIN7% → 5%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• SMUL 51-59 at SMU9% → 2%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• CONNW 31-24 at CONN89% → 94%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• TLSAL 24-49 vs TLSA34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1

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.