James Madison

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+0.1148th
  Defense−0.0596th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%75th
  Defense29.9%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1928th
  Defense+1.461st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense−0.1899th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4192nd
  Defense+0.1666th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%77th
  Defense34.3%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%73rd
  Defense23.6%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2574th
  Defense2.1399th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%32nd
  Defense26.3%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%47th
  Defense24.3%99th

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 James Madison 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
   MTSU
2. W
   NORF
3. W
   APP
4. W
   TXST
5. W
   ARST
6. L
   GASO
7. L
   MRSH
8. L
   LOU
9. W
   ODU
10. W
    GAST
11. W
    CCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for James Madison.

Players, 2022

1. Todd CenteioQB293 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 42nd of 234 QBs
   1.59WAR1.11 to 2.07
2. Percy Agyei-ObeseRB131 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 61st of 384 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.48
3. Kris ThorntonWR44 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 82nd of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
4. Latrele PalmerRB63 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 270th of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
5. Camden WisePK15 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 70th of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Sam ClarkP36 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 75th of 102 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Drew PainterTE14 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 101st of 214 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Zach HortonTE11 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 161st of 214 TEs
   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 James Madison'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.
  104104128th of 129Roster talent: 104, 128th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  4343129th of 129Recruiting: 43, 129th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.5+6.551st of 129SP+ rating: +6.5, 51st 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 James Madison'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 0.06 of the 0.08 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 MTSUQ2 0:16 4th & 5 at MTSU 35, up 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. vs MTSUQ2 0:16 4th & 5 at MTSU 35, up 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. vs MRSHQ2 11:05 4th & 1 at JMU 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at GASOQ3 4:38 4th & 3 at JMU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at ODUQ3 8:20 4th & 3 at ODU 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at APPQ3 4:12 4th & 5 at APP 16, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs MRSHQ4 0:20 4th & 5 at JMU 45, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs TXSTQ1 11:47 4th & 1 at JMU 31, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

39th of 131 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up James Madison's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MTSU
2. W

   NORF
3. W

   APP
4. W

   TXST
5. W

   ARST
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   MRSH
8. L

   LOU
9. W

   ODU
10. W

    GAST
11. W

    CCU

What moved it, 2022

Every game starts at James Madison'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+1.81
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.44

Game by game

• MTSUW 44-7 vs MTSU58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• NORFW 63-7 vs NORF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• APPW 32-28 at APP29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• TXSTW 40-13 vs TXST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• ARSTW 42-20 at ARST72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• GASOL 38-45 at GASO77% → 2%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 12-26 vs MRSH68% → 92%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• LOUL 10-34 at LOU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29
• ODUW 37-3 at ODU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• GASTW 42-40 vs GAST71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• CCUW 47-7 vs CCU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23

Points of win probability, from James Madison's side.

Closest call

JMU 32-28 APP (2022) - James Madison dropped to a 7.1% win probability before pulling it out.