Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.0670th
• 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.
  Offense38.4%17th
  Defense37.9%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2858th
  Defense+1.408th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0226th
  Defense+0.0754th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1121st
  Defense+0.1479th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%22nd
  Defense42.3%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.9%20th
  Defense29.8%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.602nd
  Defense2.8280th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%5th
  Defense19.0%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%11th
  Defense18.1%78th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UALB
2. W
   ECU
3. W
   VT
4. W
   ODU
5. L
   NCSU
6. L
   GAST
7. L
   JMU
8. L
   CCU
9. L
   APP
10. W
    GASO
11. L
    USA
12. W
    ARST
13. L
    UTSA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2023

1. Cam FancherQB344 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 53rd of 250 QBs
   1.43WAR0.68 to 2.16
2. Rasheen AliRB205 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 27th of 383 RBs
   0.44WAR0.22 to 0.63
3. Cole PenningtonQB73 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 197th of 250 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.03 to 0.34
4. Ethan PayneRB72 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 211th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.17
5. Jayden HarrisonWR29 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 186th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
6. John McConnellP45 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 69th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
7. Darryle SimmonsWR31 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 243rd of 457 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Caleb McMillanWR28 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 266th of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47947995th of 130Roster talent: 479, 95th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125107th of 130Recruiting: 125, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%72nd of 128Returning production: 47%, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.0−9.097th of 130SP+ rating: −9.0, 97th 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, 2023

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 0.15 of the 0.24 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 GASOQ3 0:23 4th & 2 at MRSH 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at APPQ4 9:50 4th & 16 at midfield, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
3. vs GASOQ3 9:47 4th & 1 at MRSH 28, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. vs ODUQ4 14:52 4th & 1 at MRSH 17, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs GASOQ4 12:36 4th & 3 at MRSH 43, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at ECUQ2 6:03 4th & 2 at ECU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at GASTQ2 8:02 4th & 2 at GAST 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at CCUQ2 7:23 4th & 3 at CCU 4, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

77th of 133 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

   UALB
2. W

   ECU
3. W

   VT
4. W

   ODU
5. L

   NCSU
6. L

   GAST
7. L

   JMU
8. L

   CCU
9. L

   APP
10. W

    GASO
11. L

    USA
12. W

    ARST
13. L

    UTSA

What moved it, 2023

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+0.23
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• UALBW 21-17 vs UALB92% → 96%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 31-13 at ECU58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• VTW 24-17 vs VT56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ODUW 41-35 vs ODU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 41-48 at NCSU29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• GASTL 24-41 at GAST43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position +2
• JMUL 9-20 vs JMU48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• CCUL 6-34 at CCU52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −48, Possession & field position +1
• APPL 9-31 at APP37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• GASOW 38-33 vs GASO43% → 95%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• USAL 0-28 at USA19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• ARSTW 35-21 vs ARST51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• UTSAL 17-35 vs UTSA23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −33, 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.