Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2079th
  Defense+0.1434th
• 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.
  Offense47.3%84th
  Defense44.4%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1518th
  Defense+1.1190th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1983rd
  Defense+0.1224th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3077th
  Defense+0.2533rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.2%88th
  Defense50.2%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%68th
  Defense30.4%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2271st
  Defense3.457th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%77th
  Defense8.5%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%52nd
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   EKU
2. L
   UL
3. W
   ASU
4. L
   BUF
5. W
   MASS
6. W
   WMU
7. L
   NIU
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   TOL
10. W
    AKR
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    CMU
13. W
    SJSU

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

Players, 2022

1. Taylor PowellQB240 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 89th of 234 QBs
   0.89WAR0.33 to 1.50
2. Austin SmithQB159 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 106th of 234 QBs
   0.64WAR0.30 to 0.99
3. Samson EvansRB176 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 37th of 384 RBs
   0.47WAR0.31 to 0.63
4. Jaylon JacksonRB82 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 152nd of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
5. Tanner KnueWR47 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.24
6. Darius LassiterWR50 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 151st of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
7. Gunnar OakesTE25 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 71st of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Hassan BeydounWR50 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 331st of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.05 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  404404110th of 129Roster talent: 404, 110th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117118th of 129Recruiting: 117, 118th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%81st of 128Returning production: 50%, 81st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.189th of 129SP+ rating: −7.1, 89th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 ASUQ4 4:26 4th & 2 at ASU 2, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. at BALLQ4 12:33 4th & 19 at BALL 37, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
3. vs BUFQ3 0:36 4th & 6 at EMU 33, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
4. vs EKUQ3 2:22 4th & 2 at EKU 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at KENTQ2 10:15 4th & 3 at KENT 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs NIUQ3 13:05 4th & 2 at EMU 39, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs BUFQ4 6:28 4th & 20 at EMU 41, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at SJSUQ3 8:23 4th & 6 at SJSU 33, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

4th of 131 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

   EKU
2. L

   UL
3. W

   ASU
4. L

   BUF
5. W

   MASS
6. W

   WMU
7. L

   NIU
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   TOL
10. W

    AKR
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    CMU
13. W

    SJSU

What moved it, 2022

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+2.44
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.10
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• EKUW 42-34 vs EKU77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• ULL 21-49 at UL22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• ASUW 30-21 at ASU10% → 94%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• BUFL 31-50 vs BUF66% → 0%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts −4
• MASSW 20-13 vs MASS88% → 98%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• WMUW 45-23 at WMU37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• NIUL 10-39 vs NIU52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• BALLW 20-16 at BALL41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• TOLL 24-27 vs TOL37% → 12%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −7
• AKRW 34-28 at AKR68% → 92%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• KENTW 31-24 at KENT28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• CMUW 38-19 vs CMU47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +3
• SJSUW 41-27 at SJSU35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3

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.