James Madison

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+0.1670th
  Defense−0.0594th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%73rd
  Defense31.4%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2868th
  Defense+1.433rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1884th
  Defense−0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2465th
  Defense−0.0193rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%81st
  Defense36.2%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.
  Offense30.7%52nd
  Defense23.9%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1781st
  Defense2.3297th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%53rd
  Defense25.5%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%77th
  Defense19.9%96th

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 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
   WEB
2. L
   LOU
3. W
   LIB
4. W
   GASO
5. W
   GAST
6. W
   UL
7. W
   ODU
8. W
   TXST
9. W
   MRSH
10. W
    APP
11. W
    WSU
12. W
    CCU
13. W
    TROY
14. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2025

1. Alonza Barnett IIIQB360 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 88th of 231 QBs
   0.92WAR0.21 to 1.66
2. Wayne KnightRB200 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 7th of 365 RBs
   0.47WAR0.33 to 0.60
3. Landon EllisWR44 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 118th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
4. Jordan FullerRB65 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 216th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Nick DeGennaroWR33 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 196th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17
6. Patrick ReaP38 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 21st of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16
7. Braeden WisloskiWR31 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 241st of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Matthew SlukaQB23 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 205th of 231 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.15

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  460460127th of 134Roster talent: 460, 127th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8282128th of 134Recruiting: 82, 128th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%42nd of 132Returning production: 50%, 42nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.3+12.327th of 134SP+ rating: +12.3, 27th 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 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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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. at LOUQ4 4:25 4th & 6 at JMU 35, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at GASTQ2 14:31 4th & 17 at JMU 32, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
3. at GASTQ4 4:04 4th & 2 at JMU 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs WEBQ3 12:03 4th & 10 at JMU 31, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at CCUQ3 10:15 4th & 3 at CCU 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs WEBQ4 5:40 4th & 2 at WEB 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TROYQ4 12:04 4th & 9 at TROY 33, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at GASTQ1 2:21 4th & 4 at JMU 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

24th of 136 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

   WEB
2. L

   LOU
3. W

   LIB
4. W

   GASO
5. W

   GAST
6. W

   UL
7. W

   ODU
8. W

   TXST
9. W

   MRSH
10. W

    APP
11. W

    WSU
12. W

    CCU
13. W

    TROY
14. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2025

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+2.16
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.74

Game by game

• WEBW 45-10 vs WEB96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• LOUL 14-28 at LOU16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• LIBW 31-13 at LIB71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• GASOW 35-10 vs GASO84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts −1
• GASTW 14-7 at GAST89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• ULW 24-14 vs UL90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• ODUW 63-27 vs ODU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +41, Clock −1
• TXSTW 52-20 at TXST72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• MRSHW 35-23 at MRSH86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• APPW 58-10 vs APP92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• WSUW 24-20 vs WSU86% → 96%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• CCUW 59-10 at CCU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• TROYW 31-14 vs TROY94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11
• OREL 34-51 at ORE8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1

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.