Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0116th
  Defense−0.0182nd
• 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.
  Offense36.8%5th
  Defense40.1%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2982nd
  Defense+1.0984th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0512th
  Defense+0.0647th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0729th
  Defense−0.0795th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.3%5th
  Defense46.5%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.3%11th
  Defense26.7%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.311st
  Defense3.0232nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%27th
  Defense17.1%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%18th
  Defense15.4%43rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   URI
2. W
   KU
3. L
   SYR
4. L
   M-OH
5. L
   BC
6. W
   OHIO
7. L
   TOL
8. W
   BALL
9. W
   WMU
10. W
    EMU
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    NIU
13. L
    WYO

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

Players, 2017

1. Shane MorrisQB398 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 55th of 226 QBs
   1.24WAR0.36 to 1.95
2. Jonathan WardRB209 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 39th of 352 RBs
   0.46WAR0.31 to 0.62
3. Mark ChapmanWR70 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 49th of 426 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
4. Corey WillisWR52 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 78th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Devon SpaldingRB17 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 277th of 352 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
6. Tyler ConklinTE53 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 16th of 199 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.11
7. Tony PoljanTE16 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 30th of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
8. Logan HessbrookTE9 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38738789th of 130Roster talent: 387, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114112th of 130Recruiting: 114, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%55th of 128Returning production: 65%, 55th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.6−8.698th of 128SP+ rating: −8.6, 98th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.11 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 WMUQ4 4:00 4th & 2 at WMU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.7 pts
2. vs TOLQ3 0:27 4th & 4 at TOL 4, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at SYRQ3 12:12 4th & 2 at CMU 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs URIQ3 10:06 4th & 6 at URI 35, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs EMUQ4 12:34 4th & 2 at CMU 18, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at KENTQ1 3:34 4th & 1 at CMU 21, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs EMUQ4 7:24 4th & 5 at CMU 48, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs EMUQ4 9:33 4th & 2 at CMU 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

10th of 130 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

   URI
2. W

   KU
3. L

   SYR
4. L

   M-OH
5. L

   BC
6. W

   OHIO
7. L

   TOL
8. W

   BALL
9. W

   WMU
10. W

    EMU
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    NIU
13. L

    WYO

What moved it, 2017

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+1.33
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.12

Game by game

• URIW 30-27 vs URI98% → 83%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −15: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts −8
• KUW 45-27 at KU41% → 98%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Clock +1
• SYRL 17-41 at SYR27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• M-OHL 14-31 vs M-OH43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts +1
• BCL 8-28 at BC24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −1
• OHIOW 26-23 at OHIO25% → 85%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• TOLL 10-30 vs TOL25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• BALLW 56-9 at BALL56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +1
• WMUW 35-28 at WMU43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• EMUW 42-30 vs EMU45% → 98%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 42-23 at KENT87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• NIUW 31-24 vs NIU44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• WYOL 14-37 at WYO48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1

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.