East Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1562nd
  Defense+0.0856th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%54th
  Defense39.5%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3586th
  Defense+1.3226th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1677th
  Defense−0.0488th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1538th
  Defense+0.2225th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%37th
  Defense41.7%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%76th
  Defense35.2%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0758th
  Defense2.5790th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%51st
  Defense23.9%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%64th
  Defense16.2%50th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   NORF
2. W
   ODU
3. L
   APP
4. L
   LIB
5. W
   UTSA
6. L
   CLT
7. L
   ARMY
8. W
   TEM
9. W
   FAU
10. W
    TLSA
11. W
    UNT
12. L
    NAVY
13. W
    NCSU

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

Players, 2024

1. Katin HouserQB223 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 112th of 232 QBs
   0.64WAR0.24 to 1.07
2. Rahjai HarrisRB193 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 19th of 373 RBs
   0.53WAR0.37 to 0.70
3. Jake GarciaQB169 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 186th of 232 QBs
   0.17WAR−0.13 to 0.49
4. Chase SowellWR31 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 70th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.25
5. London MontgomeryRB50 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 232nd of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Anthony SmithWR41 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 148th of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.21
7. Marlon Gunn Jr.RB46 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 259th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
8. Andrew ConradPK13 plays · +0.316 pts/play · 60th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61261274th of 131Roster talent: 612, 74th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915979th of 131Recruiting: 159, 79th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%91st of 130Returning production: 33%, 91st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.0−1.071st of 131SP+ rating: −1.0, 71st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.07 of the 0.12 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 APPQ4 7:24 4th & 3 at ECU 29, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs NAVYQ3 5:25 4th & 2 at ECU 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs FAUQ2 3:37 4th & 1 at ECU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at UNTQ4 10:36 4th & 4 at UNT 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs APPQ2 4:36 4th & 2 at ECU 46, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs NAVYQ2 12:29 4th & 1 at ECU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at UNTQ4 3:38 4th & 3 at ECU 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs UTSAQ4 2:14 4th & 8 at UTSA 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

39th of 134 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. W

   NORF
2. W

   ODU
3. L

   APP
4. L

   LIB
5. W

   UTSA
6. L

   CLT
7. L

   ARMY
8. W

   TEM
9. W

   FAU
10. W

    TLSA
11. W

    UNT
12. L

    NAVY
13. W

    NCSU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.03
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• NORFW 42-3 vs NORF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• ODUW 20-14 at ODU49% → 87%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• APPL 19-21 vs APP46% → 7%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• LIBL 24-35 at LIB27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29
• UTSAW 30-20 vs UTSA58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• CLTL 24-55 at CLT71% → 0%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −61, Timeouts +1
• ARMYL 28-45 at ARMY13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• TEMW 56-34 vs TEM73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• FAUW 49-14 vs FAU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30
• TLSAW 38-31 at TLSA82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 40-28 at UNT45% → 98%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NAVYL 20-34 vs NAVY62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• NCSUW 26-21 at NCSU29% → 97%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +58, 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.