Marshall · Week 5 analysis

Where the team stands

Marshall ranks No. 112 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -8.89 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 113; this update moves it +1 places and +0.10 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 5 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 3–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -2.669. Prior-season margin: +0.788.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0148; EPA/play net: -0.0037; success-rate net: -0.0118; explosiveness net: +0.0090. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 3 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

Marshall lost to James Madison by 28 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -26.23; the result was -1.77 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 Coastal Carolina on 2026-10-10. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 444 versus 573; Net passing yards: 309 versus 263; Rushing yards: 135 versus 310; First downs: 23 versus 25

Completions–attempts: 29-51 versus 21-32; Rush attempts: 30 versus 35; Yards per pass: 6.1 versus 8.2; Yards per rush: 4.5 versus 8.9

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 45 points and recorded 573 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 2; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 5; Third downs: 8-16 versus 6-12; Fourth downs: 1-2 versus 0-0

Turnovers: 2 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 2 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 9-75 versus 5-53; Possession time: 31:55 versus 28:05

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 3–2. The expected final record is 6.3–5.7 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. 111 Rutgers (-8.77); No. 113 Southern Miss (-9.23).

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.