Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1052nd
  Defense+0.0569th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%43rd
  Defense40.2%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1946th
  Defense+1.1471st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.124th
  Defense−0.1094th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2674th
  Defense+0.2228th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%45th
  Defense44.8%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%60th
  Defense30.6%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.404th
  Defense2.5583rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.0%2nd
  Defense23.5%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%88th
  Defense2.0%54th

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, 2015

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. L
   OKST
2. W
   MONM
3. L
   SYR
4. L
   MSU
5. W
   NIU
6. L
   WMU
7. W
   BUF
8. W
   BALL
9. W
   AKR
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    EMU
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2015

1. Cooper RushQB434 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 14th of 205 QBs
   2.65WAR1.92 to 3.37
2. Jesse KrollWR73 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 70th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.33
3. Anthony RiceWR55 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 96th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
4. Brian EaveyPK18 plays · +0.385 pts/play · 46th of 115 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Jahray HayesRB77 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 182nd of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Mark ChapmanWR52 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 170th of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Martez WalkerRB101 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 187th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
8. Corey WillisWR49 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  377377101st of 128Roster talent: 377, 101st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107110th of 128Recruiting: 107, 110th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%59th of 127Returning production: 66%, 59th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.1−3.185th of 128SP+ rating: −3.1, 85th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.15 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 BALLQ3 3:15 4th & 2 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs OKSTQ3 7:24 4th & 1 at CMU 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at WMUQ2 8:05 4th & 1 at CMU 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at BALLQ2 1:50 4th & 1 at CMU 17, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs NIUQ4 13:31 4th & 2 at NIU 23, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs NIUQ4 8:46 4th & 1 at CMU 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs EMUQ4 10:36 4th & 11 at EMU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at BALLQ2 9:18 4th & 2 at CMU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

55th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   OKST
2. W

   MONM
3. L

   SYR
4. L

   MSU
5. W

   NIU
6. L

   WMU
7. W

   BUF
8. W

   BALL
9. W

   AKR
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    EMU
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2015

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+0.31
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• OKSTL 13-24 vs OKST9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• MONMW 31-10 vs MONM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• SYRL 27-30 at SYR32% → 15%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +20
• MSUL 10-30 at MSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• NIUW 29-19 vs NIU44% → 98%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• WMUL 39-41 at WMU32% → 12%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• BUFW 51-14 vs BUF66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34
• BALLW 23-21 at BALL68% → 88%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• AKRW 14-6 at AKR62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• TOLL 23-28 vs TOL32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• EMUW 35-28 vs EMU93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13
• MINNL 14-21 at MINN34% → 9%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −2

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.