Eastern Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1360th
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%50th
  Defense43.7%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2454th
  Defense+1.2927th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1056th
  Defense+0.196th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2159th
  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.
  Offense46.8%41st
  Defense48.0%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%67th
  Defense33.9%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0969th
  Defense3.1421st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%59th
  Defense17.2%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%81st
  Defense10.6%1st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TXST
2. L
   LIU
3. L
   UK
4. W
   UL
5. L
   CMU
6. L
   BUF
7. W
   NIU
8. L
   M-OH
9. L
   OHIO
10. W
    BGSU
11. W
    BALL
12. L
    WMU

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

Players, 2025

1. Noah KimQB355 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 69th of 231 QBs
   1.19WAR0.54 to 1.85
2. Dontae McMillanRB178 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 23rd of 365 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.50
3. Tavierre DunlapRB97 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 133rd of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
4. Nick DevereauxWR47 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 122nd of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.25
5. Rudy KessingerPK18 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 43rd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Joshua LongTE48 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 61st of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.15
7. Terry Lockett Jr.WR21 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 274th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Benson ProsperWR7 plays · +0.039 pts/play · 418th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57357394th of 134Roster talent: 573, 94th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  136136100th of 134Recruiting: 136, 100th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%82nd of 132Returning production: 25%, 82nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.7−14.7117th of 134SP+ rating: −14.7, 117th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.18 of the 0.27 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 BUFQ4 10:39 4th & 1 at EMU 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs OHIOQ4 4:50 4th & 3 at EMU 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs BGSUQ3 12:19 4th & 1 at EMU 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs ULQ4 10:16 4th & 4 at UL 31, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs BGSUQ3 0:11 4th & 4 at BGSU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs BGSUQ2 1:56 4th & 11 at EMU 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
7. vs NIUQ3 4:40 4th & 2 at EMU 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
8. at BUFQ4 13:21 4th & 4 at EMU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

87th of 136 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

   TXST
2. L

   LIU
3. L

   UK
4. W

   UL
5. L

   CMU
6. L

   BUF
7. W

   NIU
8. L

   M-OH
9. L

   OHIO
10. W

    BGSU
11. W

    BALL
12. L

    WMU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.49
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.08
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• TXSTL 27-52 at TXST19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +1
• LIUL 23-28 vs LIU92% → 41%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −2
• UKL 23-48 at UK5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• ULW 34-31 vs UL45% → 89%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +4
• CMUL 13-24 at CMU44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −1
• BUFL 30-31 at BUF22% → 41%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +2, Clock −2
• NIUW 16-10 vs NIU46% → 97%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• M-OHL 30-44 at M-OH22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• OHIOL 21-28 vs OHIO19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• BGSUW 27-21 vs BGSU61% → 90%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• BALLW 24-9 at BALL62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• WMUL 21-31 vs WMU26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −35, 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.