East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.1350th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%21st
  Defense44.3%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2547th
  Defense+1.2836th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0515th
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0833rd
  Defense+0.2143rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.2%21st
  Defense48.7%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.
  Offense27.1%21st
  Defense33.9%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6625th
  Defense2.8557th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%29th
  Defense21.1%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.8%3rd
  Defense14.9%31st

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   UCF
2. L
   GAST
3. W
   USF
4. L
   NAVY
5. L
   TLSA
6. L
   TULN
7. L
   CIN
8. W
   TEM
9. W
   SMU

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

Players, 2020

1. Holton AhlersQB216 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 51st of 212 QBs
   0.66WAR0.28 to 1.08
2. Rahjai HarrisRB88 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 137th of 338 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.32
3. Keaton MitchellRB52 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 182nd of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.20
4. Tyler SneadWR52 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 55th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
5. Blake ProehlWR44 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 109th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. C.J. JohnsonWR33 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 161st of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Mason GarciaQB35 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 174th of 212 QBs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.13
8. Darius Pinnix Jr.RB23 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 269th of 338 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52852871st of 127Roster talent: 528, 71st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15315378th of 127Recruiting: 153, 78th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%2nd of 127Returning production: 100%, 2nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.0−11.0110th of 127SP+ rating: −11.0, 110th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.04 of the 0.07 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 USFQ2 7:07 4th & 1 at ECU 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at TLSAQ4 14:54 4th & 3 at TLSA 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs NAVYQ2 1:43 4th & 3 at ECU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs TULNQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at ECU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at GASTQ4 10:30 4th & 14 at GAST 31, down 26Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at TEMQ3 5:58 4th & 9 at TEM 32, up 25Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TEMQ2 5:16 4th & 3 at ECU 19, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs SMUQ4 2:42 4th & 14 at SMU 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

72nd of 127 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

   UCF
2. L

   GAST
3. W

   USF
4. L

   NAVY
5. L

   TLSA
6. L

   TULN
7. L

   CIN
8. W

   TEM
9. W

   SMU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.31
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.46

Game by game

• UCFL 28-51 vs UCF5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10, Clock −1
• GASTL 29-49 at GAST61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• USFW 44-24 at USF40% → 99%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• NAVYL 23-27 vs NAVY49% → 14%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• TLSAL 30-34 at TLSA14% → 21%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position +2
• TULNL 21-38 vs TULN49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• CINL 17-55 at CIN5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TEMW 28-3 at TEM70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +1
• SMUW 52-38 vs SMU26% → 99%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +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.