Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1771st
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%51st
  Defense40.0%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2962nd
  Defense+1.3034th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1984th
  Defense+0.1426th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1857th
  Defense+0.0482nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%49th
  Defense47.2%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%38th
  Defense25.9%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3589th
  Defense2.9556th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%70th
  Defense18.7%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%81st
  Defense19.0%79th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   STBK
2. L
   VT
3. L
   OSU
4. W
   WMU
5. W
   APP
6. L
   GASO
7. W
   GAST
8. W
   ULM
9. W
   USM
10. W
    CCU
11. W
    ODU
12. W
    JMU
13. W
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2024

1. Braylon BraxtonQB277 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 85th of 232 QBs
   1.12WAR0.65 to 1.67
2. A.J. TurnerRB89 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 119th of 373 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.30
3. Jordan HoustonRB86 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 170th of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
4. Stone EarleQB90 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 197th of 232 QBs
   0.13WAR−0.02 to 0.30
5. Carl ChesterWR19 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 143rd of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Ethan PayneRB43 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 246th of 373 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Rece VerhoffPK15 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 79th of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Christian FitzpatrickWR27 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 214th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.13

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58758781st of 131Roster talent: 587, 81st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125108th of 131Recruiting: 125, 108th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%103rd of 130Returning production: 27%, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.1+3.156th of 131SP+ rating: +3.1, 56th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.23 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 ULMQ4 10:29 4th & 3 at ULM 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. at JMUQ4 11:09 4th & 9 at JMU 11, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
3. vs GASTQ4 13:10 4th & 1 at MRSH 34, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs GASTQ4 9:36 4th & 4 at GAST 31, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at ODUQ2 7:24 4th & 1 at MRSH 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs WMUQ2 6:59 4th & 1 at MRSH 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs CCUQ2 11:38 4th & 17 at CCU 32, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs WMUQ2 12:18 4th & 2 at WMU 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

5th of 134 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

   STBK
2. L

   VT
3. L

   OSU
4. W

   WMU
5. W

   APP
6. L

   GASO
7. W

   GAST
8. W

   ULM
9. W

   USM
10. W

    CCU
11. W

    ODU
12. W

    JMU
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2024

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+2.60
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.29
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• STBKW 45-3 vs STBK98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• VTL 14-31 at VT7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 14-49 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• WMUW 27-20 vs WMU54% → 98%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• APPW 52-37 vs APP52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +44, Clock −2
• GASOL 23-24 at GASO47% → 15%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 35-20 vs GAST74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• ULMW 28-23 vs ULM77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• USMW 37-3 at USM80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• CCUW 31-19 vs CCU69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• ODUW 42-35 at ODU41% → 92%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• JMUW 35-33 at JMU42% → 40%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −2: Timeouts +25, Clock −16
• ULW 31-3 at UL34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +62, 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.