Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1463rd
  Defense+0.0950th
• 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.
  Offense45.1%73rd
  Defense38.9%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.147th
  Defense+1.386th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0025th
  Defense−0.0281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3588th
  Defense+0.2626th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%71st
  Defense43.7%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%55th
  Defense29.3%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0564th
  Defense2.6089th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%67th
  Defense21.9%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%79th
  Defense15.7%50th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   UGA
2. L
   MOST
3. W
   EKU
4. W
   MTSU
5. L
   UL
6. W
   ODU
7. W
   TXST
8. L
   CCU
9. L
   JMU
10. W
    GAST
11. L
    APP
12. L
    GASO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2025

1. Carlos Del Rio-WilsonQB167 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 98th of 231 QBs
   0.82WAR0.47 to 1.12
2. Nathan TottenP44 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 1st of 100 punters
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.34
3. Demarcus LaceyWR53 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 149th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
4. Zion TurnerQB57 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 189th of 231 QBs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.22
5. Michael AllenRB70 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 219th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Antwan RobertsRB84 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 219th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Lorcan QuinnPK22 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 45th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Toby PayneTE25 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 63rd of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59159189th of 134Roster talent: 591, 89th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130110th of 134Recruiting: 130, 110th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  7%7%130th of 132Returning production: 7%, 130th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.584th of 134SP+ rating: −4.5, 84th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.29 of the 0.34 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 GASTQ4 1:44 4th & 2 at MRSH 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−8.2 pts
2. at APPQ4 14:09 4th & 1 at APP 10, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. vs MOSTQ4 7:37 4th & 1 at MOST 8, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
4. at APPQ4 10:50 4th & 4 at APP 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
5. at GASTQ4 14:17 4th & 2 at GAST 12, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. vs GASOQ4 7:34 4th & 10 at GASO 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
7. vs JMUQ3 7:58 4th & 3 at JMU 41, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
8. vs ODUQ2 3:10 4th & 2 at ODU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

92nd of 136 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. L

   UGA
2. L

   MOST
3. W

   EKU
4. W

   MTSU
5. L

   UL
6. W

   ODU
7. W

   TXST
8. L

   CCU
9. L

   JMU
10. W

    GAST
11. L

    APP
12. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2025

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−0.10
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• UGAL 7-45 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MOSTL 20-21 vs MOST71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• EKUW 38-7 vs EKU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• MTSUW 42-28 at MTSU49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• ULL 51-54 at UL50% → 55%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +14, Clock +3
• ODUW 48-24 vs ODU14% → 99%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +82, Timeouts −20
• TXSTW 40-37 vs TXST38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54, Possession & field position +1
• CCUL 27-44 at CCU63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −50, Possession & field position +1
• JMUL 23-35 vs JMU14% → 2%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• GASTW 30-18 at GAST66% → 38%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −28: Clock +1, Timeouts +1
• APPL 24-26 at APP57% → 5%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• GASOL 19-24 vs GASO68% → 3%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −58, 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.