East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1442nd
  Defense+0.1541st
• 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.
  Offense40.5%26th
  Defense40.6%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3888th
  Defense+1.3423rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0727th
  Defense+0.1436th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2148th
  Defense+0.1769th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%27th
  Defense46.9%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%35th
  Defense28.1%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7514th
  Defense3.0547th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%6th
  Defense18.5%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%14th
  Defense18.6%81st

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, 2021

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
   APP
2. L
   SC
3. W
   MRSH
4. W
   CHSO
5. W
   TULN
6. L
   UCF
7. L
   HOU
8. W
   USF
9. W
   TEM
10. W
    MEM
11. W
    NAVY
12. L
    CIN

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

Players, 2021

1. Holton AhlersQB437 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 41st of 219 QBs
   1.85WAR0.94 to 2.68
2. Keaton MitchellRB155 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 56th of 387 RBs
   0.55WAR0.41 to 0.69
3. Rahjai HarrisRB157 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 115th of 387 RBs
   0.36WAR0.20 to 0.52
4. Tyler SneadWR68 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 42nd of 474 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.31
5. Audie OmotoshoWR51 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 134th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. C.J. JohnsonWR43 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Owen DafferPK18 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 46th of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Jonn YoungP37 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 68th of 101 punters
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51651677th of 130Roster talent: 516, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15215279th of 130Recruiting: 152, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%6th of 128Returning production: 100%, 6th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.5+0.578th of 130SP+ rating: +0.5, 78th 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, 2021

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.27 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 SCQ4 10:51 4th & 14 at SC 26, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.7 pts
2. at NAVYQ4 8:47 4th & 1 at NAVY 7, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
3. at MEMQ3 8:27 4th & 13 at MEM 28, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
4. vs CHSOQ4 0:37 4th & 5 at CHSO 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. vs TULNQ3 7:01 4th & 14 at TULN 31, up 16Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
6. vs TULNQ3 7:01 4th & 14 at TULN 31, up 16Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
7. at APPQ2 0:00 4th & 27 at APP 40, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
8. vs SCQ3 2:00 4th & 2 at ECU 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

31st 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

   APP
2. L

   SC
3. W

   MRSH
4. W

   CHSO
5. W

   TULN
6. L

   UCF
7. L

   HOU
8. W

   USF
9. W

   TEM
10. W

    MEM
11. W

    NAVY
12. L

    CIN

What moved it, 2021

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+0.02
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.32
• Timeouts+0.37
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13

Game by game

• APPL 19-33 at APP30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31
• SCL 17-20 vs SC44% → 5%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• MRSHW 42-38 at MRSH27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −1
• CHSOW 31-28 vs CHSO95% → 89%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +1
• TULNW 52-29 vs TULN43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• UCFL 16-20 at UCF27% → 11%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• HOUL 24-31 at HOU20% → 20%Before kickoff −30 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +17
• USFW 29-14 vs USF74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• TEMW 45-3 vs TEM88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• MEMW 30-29 at MEM43% → 72%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +22
• NAVYW 38-35 at NAVY68% → 94%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• CINL 13-35 vs CIN18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −26, 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.