Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0315th
  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.
  Offense42.2%46th
  Defense45.0%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1613th
  Defense+1.2460th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense0.0080th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0723rd
  Defense+0.2913th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%30th
  Defense49.1%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%74th
  Defense34.3%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9840th
  Defense3.0739th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%49th
  Defense17.4%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%26th
  Defense17.3%64th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MASS
2. L
   WASH
3. W
   JXST
4. W
   SFPA
5. W
   KENT
6. L
   M-OH
7. W
   CMU
8. L
   AKR
9. L
   TOL
10. L
    OHIO
11. L
    BUF
12. L
    WMU

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

Players, 2024

1. Cole SnyderQB410 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 60th of 232 QBs
   1.45WAR0.81 to 2.12
2. Delbert Mimms IIIRB147 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 91st of 373 RBs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.39
3. Markus AllenWR38 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 64th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
4. Terry Lockett Jr.WR43 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 78th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.26
5. Oran Singleton Jr.WR54 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 150th of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.03 to 0.23
6. Jesus GomezPK16 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 56th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Max ReeseTE19 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 72nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. Joey MattordRB8 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 304th of 373 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  509509109th of 131Roster talent: 509, 109th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130102nd of 131Recruiting: 130, 102nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%116th of 130Returning production: 21%, 116th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.3−13.3111th of 131SP+ rating: −13.3, 111th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.19 of the 0.25 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 TOLQ4 4:47 4th & 1 at EMU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.3 pts
2. at MASSQ3 4:49 4th & 2 at MASS 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs M-OHQ4 9:43 4th & 1 at EMU 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs TOLQ4 13:46 4th & 1 at EMU 31, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs CMUQ3 11:36 4th & 3 at midfield, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs BUFQ4 11:41 4th & 1 at EMU 19, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at KENTQ3 13:11 4th & 1 at EMU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs BUFQ4 6:07 4th & 10 at EMU 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

82nd of 134 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

   MASS
2. L

   WASH
3. W

   JXST
4. W

   SFPA
5. W

   KENT
6. L

   M-OH
7. W

   CMU
8. L

   AKR
9. L

   TOL
10. L

    OHIO
11. L

    BUF
12. L

    WMU

What moved it, 2024

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−0.55
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.47
• Other−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• MASSW 28-14 at MASS42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• WASHL 9-30 at WASH6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• JXSTW 37-34 vs JXST48% → 80%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −25
• SFPAW 36-0 vs SFPA94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• KENTW 52-33 at KENT79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• M-OHL 14-38 vs M-OH37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −4
• CMUW 38-34 vs CMU55% → 92%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −7
• AKRL 21-25 at AKR56% → 2%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position +2
• TOLL 28-29 vs TOL22% → 19%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −13
• OHIOL 10-35 at OHIO24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• BUFL 20-37 vs BUF56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WMUL 18-26 at WMU27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1

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.