Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0834th
  Defense+0.0864th
• 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.
  Offense41.9%32nd
  Defense41.4%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1527th
  Defense+1.2440th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0956th
  Defense+0.0941st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0822nd
  Defense+0.0873rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%34th
  Defense46.5%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%33rd
  Defense31.6%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1982nd
  Defense2.9541st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%78th
  Defense15.7%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%90th
  Defense16.1%8th

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, 2019

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
   VMI
2. L
   BOIS
3. W
   OHIO
4. L
   CIN
5. L
   MTSU
6. W
   ODU
7. W
   FAU
8. W
   WKU
9. W
   RICE
10. W
    LT
11. L
    CLT
12. W
    FIU
13. L
    UCF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2019

1. Brenden KnoxRB244 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 4th of 349 RBs
   1.02WAR0.80 to 1.27
2. Isaiah GreenQB366 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 91st of 228 QBs
   0.87WAR0.27 to 1.56
3. Sheldon EvansRB52 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 204th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.22
4. Justin RohrwasserPK20 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 32nd of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Xavier GainesTE62 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 14th of 207 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
6. Armani LeviasTE57 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 22nd of 207 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.18
7. Robert LeFevreP57 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 47th of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.13
8. Obi ObialoWR22 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 331st of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49049079th of 130Roster talent: 490, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016074th of 130Recruiting: 160, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%51st of 130Returning production: 68%, 51st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.9−1.969th of 130SP+ rating: −1.9, 69th 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, 2019

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 0.19 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 FAUQ4 7:55 4th & 2 at MRSH 29, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at RICEQ4 12:36 4th & 1 at MRSH 36, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at FAUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at MRSH 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs LTQ2 3:27 4th & 2 at LT 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at CLTQ4 10:47 4th & 2 at MRSH 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at RICEQ3 2:47 4th & 4 at RICE 32, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at MTSUQ2 0:21 4th & 2 at MTSU 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. vs WKUQ3 6:23 4th & 3 at WKU 26, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

63rd 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

   VMI
2. L

   BOIS
3. W

   OHIO
4. L

   CIN
5. L

   MTSU
6. W

   ODU
7. W

   FAU
8. W

   WKU
9. W

   RICE
10. W

    LT
11. L

    CLT
12. W

    FIU
13. L

    UCF

What moved it, 2019

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+0.37
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• VMIW 56-17 vs VMI99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BOISL 7-14 at BOIS22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• OHIOW 33-31 vs OHIO68% → 88%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +2
• CINL 14-52 vs CIN39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43
• MTSUL 13-24 at MTSU65% → 3%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• ODUW 31-17 vs ODU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17
• FAUW 36-31 at FAU41% → 95%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WKUW 26-23 vs WKU61% → 94%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position −1
• RICEW 20-7 at RICE81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• LTW 31-10 vs LT66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• CLTL 13-24 at CLT68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −51, Possession & field position −1
• FIUW 30-27 vs FIU74% → 86%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −17
• UCFL 25-48 vs UCF14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, 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.