East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.101st
  Defense+0.0668th
• 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.
  Offense33.2%1st
  Defense34.1%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2436th
  Defense+1.541st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.049th
  Defense−0.0992nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.061st
  Defense+0.2442nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%1st
  Defense35.0%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.1%4th
  Defense32.5%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7711th
  Defense2.4298th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%42nd
  Defense23.5%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.4%14th
  Defense19.7%90th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MICH
2. L
   MRSH
3. L
   APP
4. W
   GWEB
5. L
   RICE
6. L
   SMU
7. L
   CLT
8. L
   UTSA
9. L
   TULN
10. W
    FAU
11. L
    NAVY
12. L
    TLSA

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

Players, 2023

1. Mason GarciaQB92 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 162nd of 250 QBs
   0.29WAR0.10 to 0.49
2. Chase SowellWR48 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 38th of 457 WRs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.36
3. Rahjai HarrisRB115 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 129th of 383 RBs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.29
4. Luke LarsenP54 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 30th of 103 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
5. Jaylen JohnsonWR43 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 165th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
6. Alex FlinnQB297 plays · +0.020 pts/play · 213th of 250 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.45 to 0.78
7. Andrew ConradPK20 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 41st of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.15
8. Jsi HatfieldWR27 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 260th of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56456477th of 130Roster talent: 564, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715776th of 130Recruiting: 157, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  9%9%125th of 128Returning production: 9%, 125th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.8−12.8109th of 130SP+ rating: −12.8, 109th 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, 2023

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.17 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 TLSAQ4 3:18 4th & 2 at ECU 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. vs TLSAQ4 12:12 4th & 2 at TLSA 9, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at RICEQ2 2:51 4th & 2 at RICE 10, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at FAUQ4 10:54 4th & 3 at ECU 44, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs SMUQ4 11:22 4th & 3 at ECU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs TLSAQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at TLSA 12, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at RICEQ2 10:00 4th & 2 at ECU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs CLTQ4 13:22 4th & 3 at ECU 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

130th of 133 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

   MICH
2. L

   MRSH
3. L

   APP
4. W

   GWEB
5. L

   RICE
6. L

   SMU
7. L

   CLT
8. L

   UTSA
9. L

   TULN
10. W

    FAU
11. L

    NAVY
12. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2023

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−2.32
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• MICHL 3-30 at MICH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• MRSHL 13-31 vs MRSH42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• APPL 28-43 at APP27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• GWEBW 44-0 vs GWEB80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• RICEL 17-24 at RICE37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• SMUL 10-31 vs SMU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• CLTL 7-10 vs CLT71% → 6%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• UTSAL 27-41 at UTSA9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14
• TULNL 10-13 vs TULN12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• FAUW 22-7 at FAU27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• NAVYL 0-10 at NAVY42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• TLSAL 27-29 vs TLSA62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3

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.