Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1250th
  Defense+0.2316th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%81st
  Defense53.0%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2130th
  Defense+1.0198th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0613th
  Defense+0.1717th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3075th
  Defense+0.3021st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%76th
  Defense61.7%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%76th
  Defense26.8%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4610th
  Defense3.513rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.8%13th
  Defense12.7%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%26th
  Defense11.8%5th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   KENT
2. L
   BALL
3. L
   TOL
4. L
   CMU
5. W
   WMU
6. W
   NIU

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

Players, 2020

1. Preston HutchinsonQB251 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 57th of 212 QBs
   0.61WAR0.17 to 1.07
2. Darius Boone Jr.RB42 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 204th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.19
3. Hassan BeydounWR48 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 76th of 409 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
4. Tanner KnueWR37 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 102nd of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Quian WilliamsWR29 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 135th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Chad RylandPK12 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 28th of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Jake JulienP14 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 43rd of 77 punters
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Dylan DrummondWR12 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 362nd of 409 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  247247121st of 127Roster talent: 247, 121st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  121121122nd of 127Recruiting: 121, 122nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%107th of 127Returning production: 36%, 107th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.2−12.2114th of 127SP+ rating: −12.2, 114th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.03 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 WMUQ4 1:14 4th & 2 at WMU 2, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
2. at BALLQ3 12:33 4th & 4 at BALL 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at KENTQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at KENT 42, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs NIUQ4 14:08 4th & 8 at NIU 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs TOLQ1 9:36 4th & 1 at EMU 18, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at BALLQ2 1:30 4th & 6 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs CMUQ2 14:56 4th & 4 at CMU 16, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

57th of 127 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. L

   KENT
2. L

   BALL
3. L

   TOL
4. L

   CMU
5. W

   WMU
6. W

   NIU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• KENTL 23-27 at KENT34% → 9%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• BALLL 31-38 at BALL24% → 31%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −3, Possession & field position −3
• TOLL 28-45 vs TOL28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• CMUL 23-31 vs CMU29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• WMUW 53-42 at WMU18% → 98%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +61, Clock +4
• NIUW 41-33 vs NIU64% → 94%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +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.