Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1665th
  Defense+0.2113th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense48.3%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1633rd
  Defense+1.1184th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0026th
  Defense+0.1421st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3081st
  Defense+0.2917th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%78th
  Defense54.8%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.
  Offense38.5%85th
  Defense31.4%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6619th
  Defense3.442nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%14th
  Defense11.5%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%43rd
  Defense14.7%3rd

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, 2019

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
   CCU
2. L
   UK
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   CCSU
5. L
   CMU
6. L
   BALL
7. W
   WMU
8. L
   TOL
9. L
   BUF
10. W
    AKR
11. W
    NIU
12. L
    KENT
13. L
    PITT

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

Players, 2019

1. Mike Glass IIIQB417 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 9th of 228 QBs
   2.29WAR1.62 to 2.95
2. Shaq VannRB143 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 56th of 349 RBs
   0.51WAR0.40 to 0.63
3. Preston HutchinsonQB59 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 185th of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
4. Quian WilliamsWR46 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 102nd of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
5. Arthur Jackson IIIWR55 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 112th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
6. Line LatuWR39 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 184th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Chad RylandPK14 plays · +0.367 pts/play · 79th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Breck TurnerRB44 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 269th of 349 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  317317121st of 130Roster talent: 317, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113120th of 130Recruiting: 113, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%56th of 130Returning production: 65%, 56th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.6−8.6101st of 130SP+ rating: −8.6, 101st 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 CCUQ4 14:52 4th & 1 at EMU 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 2:43 4th & 3 at EMU 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs BALLQ3 4:43 4th & 1 at EMU 32, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs BUFQ3 7:13 4th & 8 at BUF 19, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
5. vs WMUQ3 0:13 4th & 3 at WMU 11, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at ILLQ3 3:24 4th & 8 at ILL 37, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at ILLQ2 3:21 4th & 4 at ILL 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs CCSUQ3 5:03 4th & 6 at CCSU 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

78th 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

   CCU
2. L

   UK
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   CCSU
5. L

   CMU
6. L

   BALL
7. W

   WMU
8. L

   TOL
9. L

   BUF
10. W

    AKR
11. W

    NIU
12. L

    KENT
13. L

    PITT

What moved it, 2019

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−0.82
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• CCUW 30-23 at CCU63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• UKL 17-38 at UK13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• ILLW 34-31 at ILL28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• CCSUW 34-29 vs CCSU97% → 90%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• CMUL 16-42 at CMU63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Possession & field position −1
• BALLL 23-29 vs BALL57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• WMUW 34-27 vs WMU25% → 96%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• TOLL 34-37 at TOL41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +14
• BUFL 14-43 vs BUF50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• AKRW 42-14 at AKR85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• NIUW 45-17 at NIU39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• KENTL 26-34 vs KENT56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• PITTL 30-34 vs PITT21% → 4%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −31, 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.