Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0727th
  Defense−0.0186th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%35th
  Defense36.6%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1629th
  Defense+1.1768th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1058th
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.0774th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%36th
  Defense41.4%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%37th
  Defense28.5%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1074th
  Defense2.6780th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%70th
  Defense22.7%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%56th
  Defense20.4%96th

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, 2018

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. W
   EKU
3. L
   NCSU
4. W
   WKU
5. L
   MTSU
6. W
   ODU
7. W
   FAU
8. L
   USM
9. W
   CLT
10. W
    UTSA
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    VT
13. W
    USF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2018

1. Isaiah GreenQB268 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 104th of 225 QBs
   0.78WAR0.34 to 1.28
2. Alex ThomsonQB123 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 160th of 225 QBs
   0.34WAR0.16 to 0.52
3. Tyler KingRB89 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 147th of 351 RBs
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.37
4. Brenden KnoxRB73 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 155th of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.23 to 0.34
5. Anthony AndersonRB72 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 159th of 351 RBs
   0.27WAR0.21 to 0.33
6. Keion DavisRB87 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 217th of 351 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.26
7. Tyre BradyWR103 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 92nd of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.00 to 0.30
8. Obi ObialoWR37 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 180th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45245282nd of 130Roster talent: 452, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615673rd of 130Recruiting: 156, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%95th of 129Returning production: 48%, 95th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.0+1.073rd of 130SP+ rating: +1.0, 73rd of 130 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, 2018

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 0.11 of the 0.20 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 USMQ4 13:50 4th & 19 at USM 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
2. at WKUQ4 8:39 4th & 4 at WKU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at WKUQ2 4:32 4th & 2 at WKU 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at USFQ2 3:59 4th & 6 at USF 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs FAUQ3 11:04 4th & 4 at FAU 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 14:55 4th & 5 at M-OH 30, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at M-OHQ4 14:17 4th & 2 at MRSH 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at ODUQ4 12:40 4th & 2 at MRSH 43, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

25th 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. W

   EKU
3. L

   NCSU
4. W

   WKU
5. L

   MTSU
6. W

   ODU
7. W

   FAU
8. L

   USM
9. W

   CLT
10. W

    UTSA
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    VT
13. W

    USF

What moved it, 2018

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+1.57
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• M-OHW 35-28 at M-OH47% → 96%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• EKUW 32-16 vs EKU98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +6
• NCSUL 20-37 vs NCSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• WKUW 20-17 at WKU61% → 93%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• MTSUL 24-34 vs MTSU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• ODUW 42-20 at ODU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• FAUW 31-7 vs FAU45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +50, Clock −1
• USML 24-26 at USM56% → 11%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• CLTW 30-13 vs CLT77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 23-0 vs UTSA96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• FIUW 28-25 at FIU61% → 93%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• VTL 20-41 at VT34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +1
• USFW 38-20 at USF60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2

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.