Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0530th
  Defense+0.0371st
• 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.
  Offense39.8%20th
  Defense37.9%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3087th
  Defense+1.2241st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.132nd
  Defense−0.0786th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2371st
  Defense+0.1350th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%15th
  Defense42.3%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%43rd
  Defense30.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.466th
  Defense2.3593rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.9%6th
  Defense24.3%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense18.3%72nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   M-OH
2. L
   NCSU
3. W
   KENT
4. W
   CIN
5. W
   CLT
6. W
   ODU
7. W
   MTSU
8. L
   FIU
9. L
   FAU
10. W
    WKU
11. L
    UTSA
12. L
    USM
13. W
    CSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2017

1. Chase LittonQB450 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 36th of 226 QBs
   1.60WAR0.76 to 2.45
2. Keion DavisRB184 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 56th of 352 RBs
   0.39WAR0.23 to 0.54
3. Tyler KingRB153 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 58th of 352 RBs
   0.39WAR0.26 to 0.52
4. Tyre BradyWR99 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 10th of 426 WRs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
5. Marcel WilliamsWR60 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 78th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
6. Kaare VedvikPK70 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 45th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.22
7. Willie JohnsonWR56 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Anthony AndersonRB11 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 276th of 352 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44544577th of 130Roster talent: 445, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615672nd of 130Recruiting: 156, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%94th of 128Returning production: 44%, 94th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.585th of 128SP+ rating: −4.5, 85th of 128 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.23 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 M-OHQ4 5:19 4th & 1 at MRSH 43, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at CSUQ4 3:18 4th & 3 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. vs KENTQ3 3:41 4th & 1 at MRSH 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs KENTQ3 9:46 4th & 1 at MRSH 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at FAUQ4 5:16 4th & 10 at FAU 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs USMQ2 0:35 4th & 3 at USM 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs ODUQ3 8:21 4th & 4 at ODU 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at UTSAQ3 6:43 4th & 3 at MRSH 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

28th of 130 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

   M-OH
2. L

   NCSU
3. W

   KENT
4. W

   CIN
5. W

   CLT
6. W

   ODU
7. W

   MTSU
8. L

   FIU
9. L

   FAU
10. W

    WKU
11. L

    UTSA
12. L

    USM
13. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2017

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+1.22
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.06

Game by game

• M-OHW 31-26 vs M-OH37% → 88%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• NCSUL 20-37 at NCSU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12
• KENTW 21-0 vs KENT83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• CINW 38-21 at CIN39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• CLTW 14-3 at CLT83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• ODUW 35-3 vs ODU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• MTSUW 38-10 at MTSU52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• FIUL 30-41 vs FIU81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• FAUL 25-30 at FAU28% → 5%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28
• WKUW 30-23 vs WKU77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position +1
• UTSAL 7-9 at UTSA38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• USML 27-28 vs USM53% → 24%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33, Clock −5
• CSUW 31-28 at CSU37% → 94%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3

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.