2025 East Carolina

9–⁠4 (6–⁠2 American Athletic Conference), coached by Blake Harrell.

Schedule and results

East Carolina in 2025, game by game: lost at NC State 17–24; won vs. Campbell 56–3; won at Coastal Carolina 38–0; lost vs. BYU 13–34; won vs. Army 28–6; lost at Tulane 19–26; won vs. Tulsa 41–27; won at Temple 45–14; won vs. Charlotte 48–22; won vs. Memphis 31–27; lost at UTSA 24–58; won at Florida Atlantic 42–3; won vs. Pittsburgh 23–17+53−34Lost 17–24 at NC State-7NC StateWon 56–3 vs. Campbell+53CampbellWon 38–0 at Coastal Carolina+38Coastal CarolinaLost 13–34 vs. BYU-21BYUWon 28–6 vs. Army+22ArmyLost 19–26 at Tulane-7TulaneWon 41–27 vs. Tulsa+14TulsaWon 45–14 at Temple+31TempleWon 48–22 vs. Charlotte+26CharlotteWon 31–27 vs. Memphis+4MemphisLost 24–58 at UTSA-34UTSAWon 42–3 at Florida Atlantic+39Florida AtlanticWon 23–17 vs. Pittsburgh+6Pittsburgh
Each game’s margin, wins above the line and losses below.
DateOpponentResultElo
Aug 28atNC StateL 17–⁠2441%
Sep 6vsCampbellW 56–⁠386%
Sep 13atCoastal CarolinaW 38–⁠048%
Sep 20vsBYUL 13–⁠3444%
Sep 25vsArmyW 28–⁠650%
Oct 9atTulaneL 19–⁠2633%
Oct 16vsTulsaW 41–⁠2779%
Nov 1atTempleW 45–⁠1454%
Nov 8vsCharlotteW 48–⁠2287%
Nov 15vsMemphisW 31–⁠2747%
Nov 22atUTSAL 24–⁠5850%
Nov 29atFlorida AtlanticW 42–⁠364%
Dec 27vsPittsburghMilitary BowlW 23–⁠1748%

Elo: a pregame chance from scores alone.

How it ended: Beat Pittsburgh 23–⁠17 in the Military Bowl; unranked in the final AP poll; tied for 4th in the American Athletic Conference.

In program history: The 10th-best season in program history by end-of-season Elo (of 70 on file).

Record
9–⁠4
Conference
6–⁠2 tied for 4th in American Athletic Conference
AP final
Unranked
Points
425–⁠261
Coach
Blake Harrell
Elo
1596 +99 this season
SP+ rating
8.0 No. 38 of 136; offense No. 33, defense No. 51, special teams No. 81
SRS
5.7 No. 46 of 136 in FBS
Returning
51% of last season’s EPA, No. 40 of 134
Recruiting class
No. 77 roster talent No. 78 in FBS
Offensive coordinator
John David Baker
Defensive coordinator
Josh Aldridge
Offense
Veer and shoot
Defense
Multiple 3–⁠4

How good, play by play

  • Offense51st of 136
  • Defense18th of 136
  • Offense, opponent-adjusted54th of 136
  • Defense, opponent-adjusted25th of 136
EPA per playSuccessExplosivenessFBS rank
Offense0.1245%1.1751st of 136
Defense-0.0339%1.2718th of 136
Opponent-adjusted0.11 off
0.01 def
44% off
40% def
—54th off
25th def

Passing and running

Pass successDepth of targetDeep throwsLine yardsStuffed
Offense49%9.1 yds15%3.1012%
Defense41%6.6 yds9%2.6027%
How these are measured

Play-weighted averages over games against FBS opponents; raw numbers, not adjusted for the strength of the opponent. EPA (expected points added) measures how much each play changed the expected score; success rate counts plays that kept the offense on schedule; explosiveness is the average EPA on successful plays. Lower is better on defense. Ranked by EPA per play among teams that were FBS that season. The opponent-adjusted row (offense / defense) is CollegeFootballData.com’s WEPA, which accounts for who each team played. Passing and running: depth of target is how far downfield passes traveled in the air; deep throws are the share thrown deep, of the passes whose depth and direction the play-by-play describes (about half); line yards are the running yards per carry credited to the blockers; stuffed is the share of carries stopped at or behind the line. The defense’s line is what its opponents did. From CollegeFootballData.com, 2025 on.

Drives and havoc

Points per trip inside the 40Average startHavoc
Offense3.8own 3113% allowed
Defense3.0own 2919% caused

CORE rating 8.3, 41st of 136 (offense 1.2, defense -7.1).

A trip inside the 40 is a drive that reaches the opponent’s 40-yard line; points per trip is how many it scored on average (allowed, on defense). Average start is where drives began (the defense’s line is where its opponents started). Havoc is the share of plays ending in a tackle for loss, a forced fumble, an interception or a pass broken up. CORE is CollegeFootballData.com’s context- and opponent-adjusted rating (points better than an average team; lower is better on defense). From CollegeFootballData.com.

Leaders

Passing yardsKatin Houser QB3,300 yds
Passing touchdownsKatin Houser QB19 TD
Rushing yardsLondon Montgomery RB742 yds
Rushing touchdownsKatin Houser QB9 TD
Receiving yardsAnthony Smith WR1,053 yds
Receiving touchdownsAnthony Smith WR7 TD
TacklesJa’Marley Riddle S70 tkl
SacksZion Wilson DL6 sacks
InterceptionsJa’Marley Riddle S3 INT

Top recruits in the 2025 class

Eddie Love Jr. RB★★★No. 769
Evan Powell DL★★★No. 873
Dylon Worthen DE★★★No. 1155
Derrion Horsley CB★★★No. 1325
Tavius Horne Jr. CB★★★No. 1325

247Sports composite rankings via CollegeFootballData.com; national rank in the class.

The 2025 class by position

SignedStarsRating
Quarterbacks13.00.839
Running backs13.00.875
Receivers43.00.845
Offensive line23.00.834
Defensive line43.00.855
Linebackers23.00.844
Defensive backs53.00.852
Athletes and specialists13.00.848
Whole class203.00.849

High-school signees by position group, with their average stars and 247Sports composite rating (out of 1), via CollegeFootballData.com. Athletes are signees with no set position.

Drafted in 2026

The 2026 draft
Rd 7Anthony Smith WRDallas Cowboys

Roster 124

The 2025 roster

124 players, with numbers, heights, hometowns and each player’s 2025 line; 73 have a stat line. See the roster

2025 American Athletic Conference standings

Conference page
TeamConf.OverallAP final
Navy8–⁠111–⁠223
North Texas7–⁠112–⁠224
Tulane7–⁠111–⁠318
South Florida6–⁠29–⁠4
East Carolina6–⁠29–⁠4
Memphis4–⁠48–⁠5
UTSA4–⁠47–⁠6
Army4–⁠57–⁠6
Temple3–⁠55–⁠7
Florida Atlantic3–⁠54–⁠8
Rice2–⁠65–⁠8
UAB2–⁠64–⁠8
Tulsa1–⁠74–⁠8
Charlotte0–⁠81–⁠11

Ordered by conference winning percentage, then conference wins. Division splits and tiebreakers aren’t applied.