East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2589th
  Defense+0.1722nd
• 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.
  Offense44.3%64th
  Defense45.0%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3994th
  Defense+1.2547th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1367th
  Defense+0.0369th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3890th
  Defense+0.388th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%58th
  Defense49.5%28th
• 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%83rd
  Defense35.1%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9424th
  Defense2.8482nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.0%2nd
  Defense20.2%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%47th
  Defense15.8%47th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ODU
3. W
   CAM
4. L
   NAVY
5. W
   USF
6. L
   TULN
7. W
   MEM
8. W
   UCF
9. W
   BYU
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    HOU
12. W
    TEM
13. W
    CCU

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

Players, 2022

1. Holton AhlersQB435 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 11th of 234 QBs
   2.40WAR1.68 to 3.21
2. Keaton MitchellRB180 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 31st of 384 RBs
   0.52WAR0.35 to 0.70
3. C.J. JohnsonWR54 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 65th of 455 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
4. Isaiah WinsteadWR61 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 177th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.23
5. Ryan JonesTE23 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 58th of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.11
6. Rahjai HarrisRB30 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 289th of 384 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
7. Shane CalhounTE17 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 126th of 214 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Jsi HatfieldWR10 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 373rd of 455 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49549581st of 129Roster talent: 495, 81st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115178th of 129Recruiting: 151, 78th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%29th of 128Returning production: 75%, 29th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.1+1.167th of 129SP+ rating: +1.1, 67th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.08 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 CINQ4 1:44 4th & 8 at CIN 41, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
2. vs MEMQ2 12:50 4th & 24 at ECU 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. at CINQ4 2:33 4th & 12 at ECU 44, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at CINQ4 7:01 4th & 4 at ECU 44, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at BYUQ1 3:52 4th & 2 at BYU 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TULNQ4 0:00 4th & 12 at TULN 22, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs NAVYQ1 0:52 4th & 3 at NAVY 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs ODUQ4 3:01 4th & 5 at ODU 39, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

63rd of 131 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

   ODU
3. W

   CAM
4. L

   NAVY
5. W

   USF
6. L

   TULN
7. W

   MEM
8. W

   UCF
9. W

   BYU
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    HOU
12. W

    TEM
13. W

    CCU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.21
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• NCSUL 20-21 vs NCSU22% → 8%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• ODUW 39-21 vs ODU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −1
• CAMW 49-10 vs CAM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NAVYL 20-23 vs NAVY91% → 75%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −3, Clock −1
• USFW 48-28 at USF78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• TULNL 9-24 at TULN39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• MEMW 47-45 vs MEM65% → 84%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −19
• UCFW 34-13 vs UCF35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts +2
• BYUW 27-24 at BYU42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• CINL 25-27 at CIN42% → 13%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• HOUL 3-42 vs HOU64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• TEMW 49-46 at TEM75% → 95%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• CCUW 53-29 vs CCU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32

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.