Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.2211th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%11th
  Defense47.2%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2359th
  Defense+1.2624th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0225th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0217th
  Defense+0.413rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%19th
  Defense52.5%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.7%7th
  Defense35.6%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7930th
  Defense3.1027th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%17th
  Defense18.3%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%12th
  Defense15.4%37th

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, 2016

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
   MORG
2. L
   AKR
3. L
   LOU
4. L
   PITT
5. L
   UNT
6. W
   FAU
7. L
   CLT
8. L
   USM
9. L
   ODU
10. W
    MTSU
11. L
    FIU
12. L
    WKU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2016

1. Chase LittonQB282 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 96th of 218 QBs
   0.86WAR0.41 to 1.33
2. Keion DavisRB73 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 186th of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
3. Michael ClarkWR51 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 135th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
4. Kaare VedvikPK53 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 46th of 116 kickers
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.20
5. Tony PittmanRB38 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 244th of 347 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Justin HuntWR29 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 263rd of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Josh KnightWR58 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 263rd of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Deon-Tay McManusWR42 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 304th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48548573rd of 128Roster talent: 485, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416465th of 128Recruiting: 164, 65th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%71st of 128Returning production: 64%, 71st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.7−12.7110th of 128SP+ rating: −12.7, 110th 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.15 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 FIUQ4 8:55 4th & 3 at FIU 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at UNTQ2 6:19 4th & 2 at UNT 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs CLTQ3 6:26 4th & 4 at CLT 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs CLTQ4 4:48 4th & 27 at CLT 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs AKRQ2 5:02 4th & 2 at AKR 48, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs MTSUQ2 2:50 4th & 2 at MRSH 20, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at PITTQ2 9:10 4th & 1 at MRSH 25, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at UNTQ4 4:26 4th & 16 at MRSH 19, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

127th 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. Based on 10 of 12 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   MORG
2. L

   AKR
3. L

   LOU
4. L

   PITT
5. L

   UNT
6. W

   FAU
7. L

   CLT
8. L

   USM
9. L

   ODU
10. W

    MTSU
11. L

    FIU
12. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2016

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−2.62
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• AKRL 38-65 vs AKR88% → 0%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −75, Possession & field position +1
• LOUL 28-59 vs LOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• PITTL 27-43 at PITT17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position −1
• UNTL 21-38 at UNT82% → 1%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −1
• CLTL 24-27 vs CLT87% → 14%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• USML 14-24 at USM26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −1
• ODUL 14-38 at ODU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 42-17 vs MTSU22% → 100%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +64, Timeouts −4
• FIUL 14-31 at FIU58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• WKUL 6-60 vs WKU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Clock −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.