Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1357th
  Defense+0.1629th
• 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.
  Offense45.7%69th
  Defense49.2%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1529th
  Defense+1.0990th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0124th
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2676th
  Defense+0.2325th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%57th
  Defense55.2%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.3%85th
  Defense32.6%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7931st
  Defense3.1913th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%64th
  Defense16.6%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%89th
  Defense15.3%33rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 Eastern Michigan 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
   MVSU
2. L
   MIZ
3. W
   CLT
4. W
   WYO
5. W
   BGSU
6. L
   TOL
7. W
   OHIO
8. L
   WMU
9. L
   M-OH
10. W
    BALL
11. L
    NIU
12. W
    CMU
13. L
    ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Eastern Michigan.

Players, 2016

1. Brogan RobackQB411 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 23rd of 218 QBs
   1.93WAR1.27 to 2.51
2. Ian EriksenRB179 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 86th of 347 RBs
   0.37WAR0.22 to 0.57
3. Todd PorterQB104 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 147th of 218 QBs
   0.30WAR0.14 to 0.48
4. Sergio Bailey IIWR82 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 35th of 417 WRs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.40
5. Breck TurnerRB82 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 148th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.32
6. Austin BarnesP55 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 19th of 82 punters
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
7. Antoine PorterWR48 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 132nd of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
8. Paulie FricanoPK19 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 32nd of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19

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 Eastern Michigan'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  348348114th of 128Roster talent: 348, 114th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999120th of 128Recruiting: 99, 120th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%90th of 128Returning production: 55%, 90th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.2−8.297th of 128SP+ rating: −8.2, 97th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Eastern Michigan's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.34 of the 0.40 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 CMUQ4 0:37 4th & 6 at CMU 33, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−14.4 pts
2. vs NIUQ3 1:25 4th & 1 at EMU 19, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
3. at ODUQ4 9:08 4th & 2 at ODU 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at ODUQ4 5:21 4th & 8 at ODU 48, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs CMUQ4 12:21 4th & 4 at CMU 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. vs WYOQ3 5:59 4th & 2 at EMU 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs WYOQ4 0:25 4th & 1 at EMU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs CMUQ4 10:09 4th & 4 at CMU 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

9th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Eastern Michigan's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MVSU
2. L

   MIZ
3. W

   CLT
4. W

   WYO
5. W

   BGSU
6. L

   TOL
7. W

   OHIO
8. L

   WMU
9. L

   M-OH
10. W

    BALL
11. L

    NIU
12. W

    CMU
13. L

    ODU

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Eastern Michigan'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+0.95
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.88

Game by game

• MVSUW 61-14 vs MVSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• MIZL 21-61 at MIZ6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• CLTW 37-19 at CLT51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• WYOW 27-24 vs WYO42% → 88%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• BGSUW 28-25 at BGSU36% → 95%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• TOLL 20-35 vs TOL12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• OHIOW 27-20 at OHIO25% → 91%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +53, Clock +1
• WMUL 31-45 at WMU6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −11
• M-OHL 15-28 vs M-OH64% → 2%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• BALLW 48-41 at BALL36% → 89%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• NIUL 24-31 vs NIU37% → 24%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −18
• CMUW 26-21 vs CMU43% → 83%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −1
• ODUL 20-24 at ODU34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Eastern Michigan's side.

Closest call

M-OH 12-13 EMU (2021) - Eastern Michigan dropped to a 2.3% win probability before pulling it out.