Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0729th
  Defense−0.0187th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%24th
  Defense40.2%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2255th
  Defense+1.0299th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.077th
  Defense+0.0461st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2571st
  Defense−0.0897th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%19th
  Defense46.4%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.2%40th
  Defense27.3%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.445th
  Defense3.1416th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.6%10th
  Defense16.7%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%50th
  Defense15.5%38th

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, 2018

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
   MONM
2. W
   PUR
3. L
   BUF
4. L
   SDSU
5. L
   NIU
6. L
   WMU
7. W
   TOL
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   ARMY
10. W
    CMU
11. W
    AKR
12. W
    KENT
13. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2018

1. Mike Glass IIIQB154 plays · +0.305 pts/play · 94th of 225 QBs
   0.88WAR0.58 to 1.19
2. Tyler WiegersQB287 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 110th of 225 QBs
   0.70WAR0.22 to 1.23
3. Shaq VannRB124 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 92nd of 351 RBs
   0.40WAR0.31 to 0.49
4. Ian EriksenRB67 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 215th of 351 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
5. Blake BanhamWR75 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 119th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.22
6. Arthur Jackson IIIWR62 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.23
7. Jake JulienP64 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 20th of 91 punters
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.21
8. Breck TurnerRB44 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 269th of 351 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.12

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  344344119th of 130Roster talent: 344, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109117th of 130Recruiting: 109, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%128th of 129Returning production: 15%, 128th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.0−2.086th of 130SP+ rating: −2.0, 86th 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.21 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 NIUQ3 8:12 4th & 1 at EMU 17, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs AKRQ3 8:32 4th & 1 at EMU 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at BALLQ3 14:07 4th & 1 at EMU 43, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at PURQ4 12:33 4th & 6 at PUR 39, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at KENTQ3 9:51 4th & 2 at KENT 39, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at WMUQ4 3:26 4th & 3 at WMU 15, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at BALLQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at EMU 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at WMUQ4 0:20 4th & 8 at WMU 13, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

49th of 130 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

   MONM
2. W

   PUR
3. L

   BUF
4. L

   SDSU
5. L

   NIU
6. L

   WMU
7. W

   TOL
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   ARMY
10. W

    CMU
11. W

    AKR
12. W

    KENT
13. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2018

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−0.09
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• MONMW 51-17 vs MONM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• PURW 20-19 at PUR11% → 95%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• BUFL 28-35 at BUF39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• SDSUL 20-23 at SDSU22% → 21%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +19
• NIUL 23-26 vs NIU57% → 12%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −19
• WMUL 24-27 at WMU30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• TOLW 28-26 vs TOL42% → 81%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• BALLW 42-20 at BALL48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• ARMYL 22-37 vs ARMY44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• CMUW 17-7 vs CMU83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• AKRW 27-7 vs AKR79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• KENTW 28-20 at KENT77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• GASOL 21-23 vs GASO40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −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.