Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1858th
  Defense+0.1452nd
• 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.
  Offense47.0%81st
  Defense40.3%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1535th
  Defense+1.2915th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense0.0081st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4190th
  Defense+0.2822nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%80th
  Defense42.7%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%76th
  Defense35.7%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7435th
  Defense2.5383rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%31st
  Defense23.8%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.2%63rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Central Michigan 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. W
   UTC
2. W
   PUR
3. L
   SYR
4. L
   KU
5. L
   TOL
6. W
   OHIO
7. W
   NIU
8. L
   BALL
9. W
   BUF
10. W
    EMU
11. W
    M-OH
12. L
    WMU
13. L
    WKU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Central Michigan.

Players, 2014

1. Cooper RushQB332 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 23rd of 199 QBs
   2.05WAR1.50 to 2.61
2. Thomas RawlsRB174 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 29th of 350 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.56
3. Titus DavisWR83 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 21st of 469 WRs
   0.33WAR0.19 to 0.45
4. Jesse KrollWR45 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
5. Saylor LavalliiRB74 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 205th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Devon SpaldingRB56 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 214th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Anthony RiceWR23 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 270th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Martez WalkerRB48 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 251st of 350 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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 Central Michigan'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Central Michigan's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 14 clear-cut ones account for 0.32 of the 0.37 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. at KUQ3 1:32 4th & 1 at CMU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. vs UTCQ4 2:40 4th & 2 at UTC 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at NIUQ4 10:35 4th & 1 at NIU 5, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
4. at BUFQ3 10:00 4th & 1 at CMU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
5. vs WMUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at WMU 45, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
6. vs SYRQ3 10:23 4th & 1 at CMU 29, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
7. vs BALLQ3 10:14 4th & 3 at midfield, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
8. vs WMUQ2 1:49 4th & 2 at WMU 42, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

60th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Central Michigan's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UTC
2. W

   PUR
3. L

   SYR
4. L

   KU
5. L

   TOL
6. W

   OHIO
7. W

   NIU
8. L

   BALL
9. W

   BUF
10. W

    EMU
11. W

    M-OH
12. L

    WMU
13. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Central Michigan'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+0.71
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• UTCW 20-16 vs UTC79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• PURW 38-17 at PUR41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• SYRL 3-40 vs SYR28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34
• KUL 10-24 at KU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• TOLL 28-42 at TOL17% → 2%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• OHIOW 28-10 vs OHIO69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• NIUW 34-17 at NIU22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +65, Clock +2
• BALLL 29-32 vs BALL74% → 28%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• BUFW 20-14 at BUF56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• EMUW 38-7 at EMU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• M-OHW 34-27 vs M-OH83% → 84%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −3
• WMUL 20-32 vs WMU45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• WKUL 48-49 at WKU45% → 21%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −3

Points of win probability, from Central Michigan's side.

Closest call

FIU 27-31 CMU (2021) - Central Michigan dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.