Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1050th
  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.
  Offense43.5%51st
  Defense38.7%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1219th
  Defense+1.0693rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0649th
  Defense−0.0176th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1548th
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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%43rd
  Defense42.9%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%62nd
  Defense30.4%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8956th
  Defense3.0820th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%43rd
  Defense18.0%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense1.8%40th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Marshall 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
   PUR
2. L
   OHIO
3. W
   NORF
4. W
   KENT
5. W
   ODU
6. W
   USM
7. W
   FAU
8. W
   UNT
9. W
   CLT
10. L
    MTSU
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    WKU
13. W
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2015

1. Chase LittonQB278 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 84th of 205 QBs
   1.12WAR0.71 to 1.57
2. Devon JohnsonRB71 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 97th of 333 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.33
3. Michael BirdsongQB80 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 171st of 205 QBs
   0.24WAR0.11 to 0.35
4. Tyler WilliamsP53 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 9th of 92 punters
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
5. Deandre ReavesWR55 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 102nd of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
6. Davonte AllenWR62 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 132nd of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
7. Nick SmithPK14 plays · +0.346 pts/play · 80th of 115 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Remi WatsonRB43 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 226th of 333 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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 Marshall'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49049072nd of 128Roster talent: 490, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15815870th of 128Recruiting: 158, 70th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%105th of 127Returning production: 39%, 105th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.5+3.564th of 128SP+ rating: +3.5, 64th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Marshall'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 0.14 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. at KENTQ4 0:20 4th & 13 at KENT 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. at OHIOQ3 6:07 4th & 1 at MRSH 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at KENTQ3 3:45 4th & 4 at KENT 43, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at MTSUQ2 12:00 4th & 1 at MRSH 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at OHIOQ3 14:51 4th & 4 at OHIO 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at MTSUQ4 15:00 4th & 6 at MTSU 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs CONNQ2 8:04 4th & 2 at CONN 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs PURQ3 3:37 4th & 3 at PUR 15, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

25th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   PUR
2. L

   OHIO
3. W

   NORF
4. W

   KENT
5. W

   ODU
6. W

   USM
7. W

   FAU
8. W

   UNT
9. W

   CLT
10. L

    MTSU
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    WKU
13. W

    CONN

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Marshall'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+1.58
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.31
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• PURW 41-31 vs PUR42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +42
• OHIOL 10-21 at OHIO55% → 3%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• NORFW 45-7 vs NORF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• KENTW 36-29 at KENT75% → 80%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +15
• ODUW 27-7 vs ODU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• USMW 31-10 vs USM64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 33-17 at FAU63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• UNTW 30-13 vs UNT97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8, Clock −1
• CLTW 34-10 at CLT91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• MTSUL 24-27 at MTSU40% → 12%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +17
• FIUW 52-0 vs FIU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• WKUL 28-49 at WKU21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24
• CONNW 16-10 vs CONN66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +1

Points of win probability, from Marshall's side.

Closest call

MRSH 26-12 JMU (2022) - Marshall dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.