Marshall

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1655th
  Defense+0.321st
• 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.
  Offense44.9%59th
  Defense45.2%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2653rd
  Defense+1.3519th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0739th
  Defense+0.1427th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2759th
  Defense+0.531st
• 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%67th
  Defense51.0%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%54th
  Defense31.1%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2672nd
  Defense3.2812th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%46th
  Defense15.1%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%16th
  Defense13.1%18th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   PSU
2. W
   MTSU
3. W
   MOST
4. W
   GWEB
5. L
   JMU
6. L
   CCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Marshall.

Players, 2026

1. Khalil WilkinsQB22 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 141st of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
2. Jo'Shon BarbieRB37 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 159th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
3. Zion TurnerQB29 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 167th of 192 QBs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
4. Adrian NortonWR7 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 262nd of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
5. De'Andre TamarezWR3 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 322nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
6. Toby PayneTE3 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Xayvion Turner-BradshawWR4 plays · +0.019 pts/play · 358th of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559597th of 138Roster talent: 595, 97th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126122nd of 138Recruiting: 126, 122nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  99%99%2nd of 136Returning production: 99%, 2nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.2−13.2119th of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.2, 119th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.05 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 MTSUQ3 9:14 4th & 1 at MRSH 22, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at MOSTQ2 4:33 4th & 1 at MRSH 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs GWEBQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at GWEB 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at JMUQ4 11:05 4th & 17 at MRSH 42, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at JMUQ4 13:36 4th & 9 at JMU 26, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at PSUQ1 7:16 4th & 1 at MRSH 30, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at PSUQ1 0:27 4th & 4 at MRSH 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs GWEBQ1 6:49 4th & 9 at GWEB 36, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

96th of 138 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

   PSU
2. W

   MTSU
3. W

   MOST
4. W

   GWEB
5. L

   JMU
6. L

   CCU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.22
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• PSUL 0-45 at PSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• MTSUW 28-26 vs MTSU83% → 95%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• MOSTW 30-24 at MOST68% → 95%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• GWEBW 36-35 vs GWEB95% → 94%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• JMUL 17-45 at JMU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• CCUL 21-27 vs CCU71% → 2%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −57, 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.