James Madison

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+0.1141st
  Defense−0.0899th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%55th
  Defense33.9%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2125th
  Defense+1.445th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1674th
  Defense−0.0591st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0926th
  Defense−0.0698th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%68th
  Defense39.1%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.
  Offense29.3%31st
  Defense26.2%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2779th
  Defense2.4696th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%71st
  Defense24.4%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%80th
  Defense20.4%93rd

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 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
   CLT
2. W
   GWEB
3. W
   UNC
4. W
   BALL
5. L
   ULM
6. W
   CCU
7. L
   GASO
8. W
   USM
9. W
   GAST
10. W
    ODU
11. L
    APP
12. L
    MRSH
13. W
    WKU

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

Players, 2024

1. Alonza Barnett IIIQB378 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 83rd of 232 QBs
   1.18WAR0.38 to 1.93
2. George PettawayRB149 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 65th of 373 RBs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.43
3. Omarion DollisonWR37 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 41st of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
4. Wayne KnightRB75 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 174th of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Ryan HansonP40 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 25th of 106 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.19
6. Taylor ThompsonTE30 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 33rd of 221 TEs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Noe RuelasPK12 plays · +0.339 pts/play · 60th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Ayo AdeyiRB15 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 295th of 373 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  459459120th of 131Roster talent: 459, 120th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  5959129th of 131Recruiting: 59, 129th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  4%4%128th of 130Returning production: 4%, 128th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.5+7.540th of 131SP+ rating: +7.5, 40th 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 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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.09 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 CLTQ3 9:25 4th & 10 at JMU 21, up 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.5 pts
2. at GASOQ2 0:09 4th & 8 at GASO 33, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at APPQ4 2:57 4th & 12 at APP 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs GWEBQ4 11:14 4th & 4 at GWEB 8, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs CCUQ2 2:55 4th & 2 at JMU 39, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs WKUQ2 2:46 4th & 4 at JMU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs WKUQ3 2:25 4th & 4 at WKU 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at GASOQ4 0:00 4th & 13 at GASO 13, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

63rd of 134 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

   CLT
2. W

   GWEB
3. W

   UNC
4. W

   BALL
5. L

   ULM
6. W

   CCU
7. L

   GASO
8. W

   USM
9. W

   GAST
10. W

    ODU
11. L

    APP
12. L

    MRSH
13. W

    WKU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.56
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.31
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.94

Game by game

• CLTW 30-7 at CLT60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• GWEBW 13-6 vs GWEB98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +7
• UNCW 70-50 at UNC17% → 100%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +67, Clock +4
• BALLW 63-7 vs BALL90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• ULML 19-21 at ULM85% → 4%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• CCUW 39-7 vs CCU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +37
• GASOL 14-28 at GASO70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −3
• USMW 32-15 vs USM93% → 94%Before kickoff +43 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts −1
• GASTW 38-7 vs GAST83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• ODUW 35-32 at ODU52% → 94%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• APPL 20-34 at APP59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 33-35 vs MRSH58% → 60%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +2: Timeouts −25, Clock +16
• WKUW 27-17 vs WKU66% → 98%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +36, 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.