James Madison

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+0.1767th
  Defense−0.0192nd
• 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.
  Offense45.6%79th
  Defense33.2%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2544th
  Defense+1.492nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0113th
  Defense−0.1296th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4694th
  Defense+0.1576th
• 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%80th
  Defense37.1%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.
  Offense32.8%61st
  Defense26.8%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.738th
  Defense2.1799th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%1st
  Defense26.1%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%24th
  Defense24.3%99th

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 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
   BUCK
2. W
   UVA
3. W
   TROY
4. W
   USU
5. W
   USA
6. W
   GASO
7. W
   MRSH
8. W
   ODU
9. W
   GAST
10. W
    CONN
11. L
    APP
12. W
    CCU
13. L
    AF

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

Players, 2023

1. Jordan McCloudQB437 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 2nd of 250 QBs
   2.54WAR1.77 to 3.39
2. Elijah SarrattWR66 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 6th of 457 WRs
   0.38WAR0.26 to 0.49
3. Reggie BrownWR50 plays · +0.383 pts/play · 9th of 457 WRs
   0.36WAR0.24 to 0.48
4. Ty Son LawtonRB128 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 96th of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.34
5. Kaelon BlackRB133 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 186th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.26
6. Ryan HansonP51 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 19th of 103 punters
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
7. Camden WisePK16 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 69th of 113 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Phoenix SprolesWR49 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 296th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.04 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 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  197197130th of 130Roster talent: 197, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3232129th of 130Recruiting: 32, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  11%11%124th of 128Returning production: 11%, 124th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.8+11.820th of 130SP+ rating: +11.8, 20th 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 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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 ODUQ4 0:32 4th & 3 at ODU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at MRSHQ4 9:35 4th & 3 at MRSH 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs GASOQ3 9:29 4th & 4 at GASO 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs APPQ4 1:22 4th & 18 at APP 38, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. at TROYQ4 3:03 4th & 9 at TROY 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs CONNQ3 12:09 4th & 1 at CONN 10, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at TROYQ3 9:32 4th & 2 at TROY 14, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at MRSHQ2 1:57 4th & 4 at JMU 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

3rd of 133 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

   BUCK
2. W

   UVA
3. W

   TROY
4. W

   USU
5. W

   USA
6. W

   GASO
7. W

   MRSH
8. W

   ODU
9. W

   GAST
10. W

    CONN
11. L

    APP
12. W

    CCU
13. L

    AF

What moved it, 2023

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+3.93
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.30
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.44

Game by game

• BUCKW 38-3 vs BUCK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UVAW 36-35 at UVA59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position +2
• TROYW 16-14 at TROY32% → 94%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• USUW 45-38 at USU54% → 95%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• USAW 31-23 vs USA42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46
• GASOW 41-13 vs GASO55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43
• MRSHW 20-9 at MRSH52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• ODUW 30-27 vs ODU88% → 89%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +1
• GASTW 42-14 at GAST56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47
• CONNW 44-6 vs CONN92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• APPL 23-26 vs APP68% → 71%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +3: Timeouts −22, Clock +17
• CCUW 56-14 at CCU51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52
• AFL 21-31 at AF37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2

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.