Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.028th
  Defense+0.1049th
• 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.
  Offense35.9%5th
  Defense42.2%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.095th
  Defense+1.2073rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0223rd
  Defense+0.1042nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0611th
  Defense+0.1865th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%12th
  Defense46.7%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.
  Offense21.4%2nd
  Defense32.2%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9627th
  Defense3.457th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%67th
  Defense13.4%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.7%5th
  Defense15.7%38th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   HOW
2. L
   MINN
3. W
   MASS
4. L
   JXST
5. L
   CMU
6. W
   BALL
7. W
   KENT
8. L
   NIU
9. L
   WMU
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    AKR
12. W
    BUF
13. L
    USA

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

Players, 2023

1. Austin SmithQB298 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 83rd of 250 QBs
   1.06WAR0.46 to 1.74
2. Samson EvansRB118 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 72nd of 383 RBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.38
3. Jaylon JacksonRB121 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 96th of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.35
4. Hamze El-ZayatWR34 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 156th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.18
5. JB Mitchell IIIWR43 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 183rd of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. Jesus GomezPK14 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 65th of 113 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Tanner KnueWR57 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 226th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.04 to 0.20
8. Mitchell TomasekP49 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 65th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.17

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  377377116th of 130Roster talent: 377, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125106th of 130Recruiting: 125, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%67th of 128Returning production: 50%, 67th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.3−12.3107th of 130SP+ rating: −12.3, 107th 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, 2023

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 0.19 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 USAQ1 1:31 4th & 7 at USA 28, up 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
2. vs USAQ1 6:08 4th & 11 at USA 22, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
3. at JXSTQ2 0:02 4th & 25 at JXST 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
4. vs HOWQ4 4:04 4th & 1 at HOW 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs USAQ2 1:04 4th & 17 at USA 20, up 35Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs BALLQ2 0:24 4th & 17 at BALL 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at TOLQ2 8:30 4th & 1 at EMU 39, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at NIUQ3 3:56 4th & 3 at EMU 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

45th of 133 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

   HOW
2. L

   MINN
3. W

   MASS
4. L

   JXST
5. L

   CMU
6. W

   BALL
7. W

   KENT
8. L

   NIU
9. L

   WMU
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    AKR
12. W

    BUF
13. L

    USA

What moved it, 2023

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+0.47
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• HOWW 33-23 vs HOW92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• MINNL 6-25 at MINN10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15
• MASSW 19-17 vs MASS73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• JXSTL 0-21 at JXST39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −1
• CMUL 23-26 at CMU31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• BALLW 24-10 vs BALL62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 28-14 vs KENT77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• NIUL 13-20 at NIU21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• WMUL 21-45 vs WMU43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• TOLL 23-49 at TOL10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• AKRW 30-27 vs AKR60% → 53%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts +4
• BUFW 24-11 at BUF32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• USAL 10-59 vs USA11% → 100%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +67

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.