Coastal Carolina · Week 6 analysis

Where the team stands

Coastal Carolina ranks No. 117 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -9.48 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 114; this update moves it -3 places and -0.24 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 6 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–4. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +0.217. Prior-season margin: -7.655.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0031; EPA/play net: +0.0539; success-rate net: -0.0485; explosiveness net: +0.2199. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 4 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Coastal Carolina beat Marshall by 6 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -3.22; the result was +9.22 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is App State on 2026-10-17. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 308 versus 505; Net passing yards: 73 versus 284; Rushing yards: 235 versus 221; First downs: 16 versus 25

Completions–attempts: 8-18 versus 21-37; Rush attempts: 45 versus 41; Yards per pass: 4.1 versus 7.7; Yards per rush: 5.2 versus 5.4

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 21 points and recorded 505 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 8 versus 9; Third downs: 3-12 versus 9-15; Fourth downs: 1-1 versus 0-2

Turnovers: 1 versus 6; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 3; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 3; Penalties–yards: 2-20 versus 5-32; Possession time: 30:51 versus 29:09

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–4. The expected final record is 3.9–8.1 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 116 South Alabama (-8.84); No. 118 UAB (-9.76).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.