Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1041st
  Defense+0.1149th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%30th
  Defense43.7%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2983rd
  Defense+1.1943rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.0461st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1750th
  Defense+0.1940th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%36th
  Defense49.8%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%28th
  Defense32.4%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.516th
  Defense2.8560th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%18th
  Defense20.0%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%13th
  Defense15.5%39th

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, 2016

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
   PRES
2. W
   OKST
3. W
   UNLV
4. L
   UVA
5. L
   WMU
6. W
   BALL
7. W
   NIU
8. L
   TOL
9. L
   KENT
10. L
    M-OH
11. W
    OHIO
12. L
    EMU
13. L
    TLSA

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

Players, 2016

1. Cooper RushQB417 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 20th of 218 QBs
   2.04WAR1.44 to 2.67
2. Corey WillisWR86 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 39th of 417 WRs
   0.27WAR0.16 to 0.40
3. Jahray HayesRB128 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 154th of 347 RBs
   0.24WAR0.11 to 0.37
4. Devon SpaldingRB146 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 163rd of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.05 to 0.38
5. Mark ChapmanWR55 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Brian EaveyPK14 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 94th of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.11
7. Tyler ConklinTE57 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 14th of 195 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.05 to 0.14
8. Jesse KrollWR11 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 356th of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39239299th of 128Roster talent: 392, 99th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109112th of 128Recruiting: 109, 112th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  93%93%10th of 128Returning production: 93%, 10th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.1−6.191st of 128SP+ rating: −6.1, 91st 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 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. vs BALLQ4 2:19 4th & 3 at BALL 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at NIUQ4 12:19 4th & 6 at NIU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at M-OHQ3 14:37 4th & 1 at CMU 33, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs OHIOQ2 9:46 4th & 1 at CMU 26, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at EMUQ3 4:21 4th & 1 at CMU 24, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs UNLVQ3 4:40 4th & 5 at UNLV 39, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at NIUQ3 6:29 4th & 7 at NIU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TOLQ2 5:29 4th & 5 at CMU 41, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

111th 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

   PRES
2. W

   OKST
3. W

   UNLV
4. L

   UVA
5. L

   WMU
6. W

   BALL
7. W

   NIU
8. L

   TOL
9. L

   KENT
10. L

    M-OH
11. W

    OHIO
12. L

    EMU
13. L

    TLSA

What moved it, 2016

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−0.76
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• PRESW 49-3 vs PRES98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• OKSTW 30-27 at OKST11% → 95%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• UNLVW 44-21 vs UNLV85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• UVAL 35-49 at UVA56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• WMUL 10-49 vs WMU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −44
• BALLW 24-21 vs BALL81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• NIUW 34-28 at NIU62% → 41%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −21: Timeouts +25, Clock −15
• TOLL 17-31 at TOL27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• KENTL 24-27 vs KENT85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHL 17-37 at M-OH66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts +1
• OHIOW 27-20 vs OHIO58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• EMUL 21-26 at EMU57% → 17%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +1
• TLSAL 10-55 at TLSA24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26

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.