Skip to content
Eastern Michigan

Eastern Michigan Eagles

Mid-American·1-2·
Elo
1353#105
SP+
-15.6#122
FPI
-15.5
AP
NR
Next@ Wisconsin · Wk 3Win prob 21%Model +13.1
Talent #103 (580.6)Recruiting class #10672% production returning

Roster · 113 players

FR 29SO 16JR 26SR 42
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Noah KimQBSR6'2"186
10Brogan McCaugheyQBSR6'1"212
12Jace StuckeyQBJR6'2"197
13Nick KinseyQBFR6'2"198
19Bryce ButtonQBSO6'2"207
15Amareon BlueRBSO5'6"195
21Malachi JamesRBJR5'11"202
22Decorie JohnsonRBFR6'1"218
24Joey MattordRBSR6'0"192
26Nazir Jones-DavisRBFR6'0"214
27XaVior TyusRBJR5'9"195
28Braydon BennettRBSR6'2"215
2Nick DevereauxWRSR6'1"190
3Benson ProsperWRSR5'10"186
5Harold MackWRSO5'10"175
11Antonio FloydWRJR6'2"182
18Mekhi FoxWRSR6'1"194
25Quinn FracassiWRSR5'11"162
80Shawn FishwickWRFR6'1"190
82Nate LymanWRSO6'1"197
83Bacori MinnerWRFR6'1"160
84JT BeasleyWRJR6'3"198
85Kozy IsaacWRSO5'11"178
86Dalin WilkinsWRJR6'2"205
87CJ MillerWRFR5'10"185
89Carl Jean-BartWRFR5'11"180
9Joshua LongTEJR6'5"242
14Armaad SharpTEFR6'2"235
16Jackson HoltTESR6'5"248
43Payton KokalyTEFR6'3"210
44Adon TurnerTESR6'3"230
48Nathan PiggottTEFR6'5"230
49Brady SheltonTEFR6'5"232
88Tanner LemasterTESR6'6"245
50Kevin WojciechowskiOLSO6'4"307
52Richardo WourmanOLJR6'2"300
54Nathan HenryOLSR6'1"300
55Guzzy KayedOLJR6'3"316
56Chad TroxlerOLSO6'3"308
59Andrew TrahinOLFR6'4"300
62Adham AbourayaOLJR6'5"306
65Nicholas GallegosOLSR6'3"294
66Joshua AndersonOLSR6'4"328
68Tyler McMillanOLSR6'5"325
70Samuel AdjinOLFR6'3"292
71Tyler BrumfieldOLSR6'6"305
72Cole DellingerOLSR6'2"295
74Carter MiculkaOLFR6'5"280
75Elijha PayneOLSR6'6"315
76Nily TaylorOLFR6'4"295
77Cole PowellOLSO6'6"295
78Dennis Strey Jr.OLSR6'7"312
79Jackson HigginsOLFR6'2"280
5Makhi GilbertDLSR6'3"282
33Carter EvansDLSR6'4"264
43Marvell EgglestonDLJR6'5"225
44Mark DebiakDLJR6'3"262
50CJ McCoyDLFR6'2"287
53Alijah LaceyDLSR6'4"235
54Quincy ByasDLSO6'1"230
55Javon ThomasDLJR6'4"280
56RJ AlphonseDLFR6'2"237
58Peyton ChristianDLSR5'11"300
64Noah PattersonDLJR6'2"295
85Jefferson AdamDLSR6'2"260
88Ronn HardinDLSR6'3"220
90Hector GonzalezDLSO6'5"245
91Reggie GardnerDLJR5'11"288
93Owen EdlenDLFR6'3"236
94Brandon Simmons Jr.DLFR6'0"280
95Milan ColvinDLSO6'0"306
96Antoniyo SmithDLSO6'3"278
97Jahbarri FrostDLFR6'1"306
98Joseph OluwayemiDLSR6'1"310
99Warren-Stevens TayouDLSR6'1"290
3Barry ManningLBSR6'1"212
11Zach MowchanLBSR6'2"224
26Solomon BellLBSR5'9"200
32Kijon BraxtonLBFR6'2"217
36Colin MainLBJR6'2"218
40Bryce EliukLBSR6'1"222
42Jonah FlowersLBJR5'11"213
45Kadin BaileyLBSR6'2"230
46Noah KniggaLBSO6'1"221
51Elgin McDuffeyLBJR6'0"232
57Aaron KearseLBFR5'11"213
4Juan SalasDBSR5'8"181
6Bryce LlewellynDBSR5'11"207
7Jordan ToneyDBJR6'4"195
8Jaivian NormanDBSR5'9"185
9Davion WilliamsDBSR5'11"183
10Tylan BoykinDBSO6'1"176
13Jason MarshallDBSR6'3"201
16Caleb ColeyDBSR6'0"162
17Caleb DobbsDBJR6'0"162
18Dior BoydDBSR5'10"167
19Jonnie CarterDBSO6'1"210
20Ray HesterDBJR5'11"190
23Eli LovettDBJR6'0"198
24Horace Glenn IIIDBFR5'11"165
25Rayquan AdkinsDBJR5'11"178
27Marty CollinsDBFR5'10"192
28Davontey OliverDBFR6'1"172
29Donmiel RogersDBSO5'10"175
31Antonio Solares-VittiDBFR6'4"208
35Jabari MondsDBFR5'7"157
33Adam SamahaPKJR5'11"175
37Nathan DibertPKSR5'10"216
46Rudy KessingerPKJR6'2"185
38Van KrisiloffPFR5'11"167
39Daniel HullPJR5'9"193
41Reeves TaylorLSSR6'2"200
42Jack KautzLSSR5'11"206

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
18.7
scoring offense
Points allowed
26.3
scoring defense
Differential
-7.7
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
282.7#123
Yards / play
4.5#120
Passing yards / game
190.3#99
Rushing yards / game
92.3#122
First downs / game
15.7#120
3rd down %
31.8%#112
4th down %
25.0%#101
Time of possession
30:25#69
Defense
Yards allowed / game
397.7#104
Yards / play allowed
5.7#98
Pass yards allowed / game
249.7#110
Rush yards allowed / game
148.0#99
3rd down % allowed
40.0%#85
Sacks
5#29
Tackles for loss
17#7
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+2#22
Takeaways
5#6
Giveaways
3#95
Penalties / game
3.7#18
Penalty yards / game
25.3#10

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 3 games in

pass-leaning

Eastern Michigan throws it: Chris Creighton's offenses have been pass-leaning across 11 seasons. The way in is 118th at defending the run, and they are 115th at holding the line of scrimmage.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−1.9%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −27.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Eastern Michigan has played 3 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 32% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Soft spots

  • Defenserunning it
    +0.11
    #118 of 138
  • Defensethe push the line gets
    2.88
    #115 of 138
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    1.13
    #110 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 8 to play
5.06.0
projected final record (now 12)
Exp. wins left
4.0
of 8 games
Bowl odds
34%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
92%
vs Massachusetts
Toughest
21%
vs Wisconsin

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 8 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

123456789
final winstallest bar = 32% chance
Likeliest finish 5-6 (32%)Bowl eligible 34% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
WRNick Devereaux, Harold Mack +2
+14.9 EPA
QBNoah Kim
+11.7 EPA
RBBraydon Bennett, Joey Mattord +1
+10.3 EPA
TETanner Lemaster, Joshua Long
+1.5 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBNoah Kim
~$560K
EPA +11.70.098/play119 snaps
EPA +5.20.227/play23 snaps
EPA +7.60.361/play21 snaps
RBAmareon Blue
~$204K
EPA +7.00.183/play38 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0414th#119
Def0.1246th#75
Explosiveness
Off1.1325th#104
Def1.2458th#59
Field position
Off75.288th#18
Def67.588th#17
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.8820th#110
Def3.6037th#87
Turnovers
Won 5Lost 3
Margin +2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.0815th#118
Off · rush
0.0226th#102

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0226th#103
Def0.1135th#90
Passing
Off0.0815th#118
Def0.1753rd#65

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.82#97
2nd-level / open-field
1.00 / 1.26
Power / stuff (off)
81.3% / 16.9%
Havoc — total (def)
19.1%#49
Havoc — front 7 / DB
9.8% / 9.3%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.06
Def0.06
Pass downs
Off-0.01
Def0.22

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.01#87-0.10#1110.22#113
Defense-0.05#68-0.03#440.66#107

Elo Trajectory

Sacramento StateFinal
Elo rating 13261291-35 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.0115th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0358th
  • Offense success rate35%17th
  • Defense success rate allowed34%61st

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs44%32nd
  • Offense success — passing downs16%7th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs42%51st
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs22%61st

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.242nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.335th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.277th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.29th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.416th
  • Defense line yards allowed1.883rd
  • Offense highlight yards1.359th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.036th
  • Offense power success0.8874th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6761st
  • Offense stuff rate0.1836th
  • Defense stuff rate0.3391st

Third down

  • Third down conversion27%13th
  • Third down distance faced7.429th
  • Third down conversion allowed28%70th
  • Third down distance forced8.881st

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1661st
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1712th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.327th
  • Points per drive allowed1.659th
  • Average starting field position2640th
  • Opponent starting field position3127th
  • Available yards gained35%20th
  • Available yards allowed30%85th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive64%16th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed69%76th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.342nd
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.363rd
  • Three-and-out rate36%29th
  • Three-and-outs forced38%78th

Roster

  • Returning usage59%71st
  • Returning EPA22984th
  • Team talent composite58126th
  • Recruiting class rank10623rd
  • Recruiting class points17523rd

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Balanced offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.041#119 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.080#118
Rush EPA/play
+0.016#103
Explosiveness
1.127#104
Pts/opportunity
2.88#110
Success rate
37.6%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.063 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.117#75 · average
Havoc rate (total)
19.1%#49
Front-7 havoc
9.8%
DB havoc
9.3%
Big play rate allowed
1.241#59
Success rate allowed
40.5%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

18.7 PPG offense, 26.3 allowed — -7.7 margin/game
Points per game
18.7
Points allowed/game
26.3
Scoring margin/game
-7.7
Turnover margin
+2won 5 · lost 3
Production returning
72%
Talent rank (247)
#103

1-2 record through 3 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE14thEXPLOSIVENESS25thFINISHING20thFIELD POS88thDEFENSE46thHAVOC65th50th100th
Offense
14th
Explosiveness
25th
Finishing
20th
Field Pos
88th
Defense
46th
Havoc
65th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

The season, week by week · 2026

A season-long average is taken over a period during which the team changed. This is the same numbers as a trajectory, so a mid-season turn is visible instead of averaged away.

Offense EPA/play 0.114 in the second half
-0.030.040.11112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense EPA allowed 0.016 in the second half
-0.080.110.30112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Offense success rate 0.137 in the second half
0.290.360.44112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense success allowed 0.116 in the second half
0.330.440.56112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-9.5
#107
Offense
-10.0
#127
Defense
-0.5
#69
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 28 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.251.58
Starting field positionown 26.4own 31.0
Available yards34.8%30.5%
Scoring opportunities64.3%69.2%
Points per opportunity2.332.28
Three-and-out rate35.7%38.5%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
60.3%
Expected, given the spots
51.6%
Over expected
+8.7
Fourth down vs peers
-3
Fourth down vs the model
-14
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Eastern Michigan is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Eastern Michigan in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Bowling GreenSP+ -12.8
Off EPA/play +0.025Def EPA/play +0.147Elo 1340
Match
98%
Jacksonville StateSP+ -7.0
Off EPA/play +0.100Def EPA/play +0.120Elo 1432
Match
97%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1349
Match
97%
WyomingSP+ -15.2
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1300
Match
97%
Boston CollegeSP+ -7.4
Off EPA/play +0.102Def EPA/play +0.148Elo 1379
Match
97%
LibertySP+ -7.2
Off EPA/play -0.027Def EPA/play +0.096Elo 1697
Match
97%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -25.6, #121 of 1282016: -10.8, #97 of 1282017: -4.6, #78 of 1302018: -3.5, #85 of 1302019: -11.1, #104 of 1302020: -1.9, #73 of 1242021: -19.1, #113 of 1302022: -5.1, #84 of 1312023: -24.8, #131 of 1332024: -21.0, #124 of 1342025: -16.0, #114 of 1362026: -9.5, #107 of 138
20152026
Now -9.5 · #107 of 138Best -1.9 in 2020Worst -25.6 in 2015

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-11-0
50%
0.9+0.1
20254-83-5
33%
4.2-0.2
20245-72-6
42%
3.2+1.8
20236-74-4
46%
4.5+1.5
20229-45-3
69%
8.3+0.7
20217-64-4
54%
4.5+2.5
20202-42-4
33%
2.5-0.5
20196-73-5
46%
6.0+0.0
20187-65-3
54%
7.8-0.8
20175-73-5
42%
5.5-0.5

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-1 so far, projected to finish 5.1-7.0. Wins the Mid-American in 1.8%.

If they finish with…

0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.2 points since preseasonwon 28-17 over Sacramento State against an expected margin of +26, so 23.2 against the number.

  • The Mid-American takes 0.05 bids in an average season.
The full playoff picture →

Mid-American

1-0 in league play, projected 3.9-4.18 of 13 by title odds
1.8%
Wins the Mid-American
5.9%
Reaches the title game

The Mid-American sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk12Eastern Michigan at Western Michigan8.7
  • wk7Toledo at Eastern Michigan4.5
  • wk8Eastern Michigan at Ohio4.4
  • wk2Eastern Michigan at Michigan State3.3

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mid-American race →

If not the playoff, then

38%
Bowl eligible
35%
Placed in a bowl
0%
In the playoff
65%
Season over in November

Eastern Michigan is 1-1 and needs 5 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 2.8% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Famous Idaho Potato Bowl8.9%
  • Arizona Bowl8.0%
  • Salute to Veterans Bowl6.8%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl3.8%
  • 68 Ventures Bowl2.6%
  • Boca Raton Bowl2.1%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent Eastern Michigan a player since 2010 — 8 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Eastern Michigan's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
WestlakeGA30
Archbishop MoellerOH20
Brother RiceIL20
FlanaganFL10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.