Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.111st
  Defense+0.0179th
• 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.
  Offense34.1%1st
  Defense40.2%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.011st
  Defense+1.1179th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0216th
  Defense+0.0560th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.212nd
  Defense−0.0288th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%5th
  Defense47.3%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.5%1st
  Defense25.2%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8137th
  Defense2.8457th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%29th
  Defense19.4%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.0%7th
  Defense16.7%61st

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, 2018

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
   UK
2. L
   KU
3. L
   NIU
4. W
   ME
5. L
   MSU
6. L
   BUF
7. L
   BALL
8. L
   WMU
9. L
   AKR
10. L
    EMU
11. L
    BGSU
12. L
    TOL

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

Players, 2018

1. Tommy LazzaroQB177 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 102nd of 225 QBs
   0.80WAR0.44 to 1.16
2. Romello RossRB90 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 167th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
3. Kumehnnu GwillyLB60 plays · +0.152 pts/play
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
4. Jonathan WardRB62 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 240th of 351 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
5. Tony PoljanTE49 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 22nd of 204 TEs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.12
6. Logan HessbrookTE3 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 183rd of 204 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Devon SpaldingRB31 plays · −0.001 pts/play · 308th of 351 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.04 to 0.04
8. Jack SheldonP68 plays · −0.015 pts/play · 91st of 91 punters
   −0.02WAR−0.11 to 0.07

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41441492nd of 130Roster talent: 414, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  119119110th of 130Recruiting: 119, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%125th of 129Returning production: 18%, 125th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.0−20.0122nd of 130SP+ rating: −20.0, 122nd of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.10 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 UKQ3 10:52 4th & 1 at CMU 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs BGSUQ2 13:12 4th & 1 at CMU 10, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at UKQ3 14:52 4th & 3 at UK 47, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at AKRQ3 4:02 4th & 4 at AKR 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at AKRQ4 2:57 4th & 17 at AKR 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at EMUQ2 10:07 4th & 4 at EMU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MEQ3 9:16 4th & 3 at CMU 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MEQ2 1:52 4th & 10 at ME 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

128th 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. L

   UK
2. L

   KU
3. L

   NIU
4. W

   ME
5. L

   MSU
6. L

   BUF
7. L

   BALL
8. L

   WMU
9. L

   AKR
10. L

    EMU
11. L

    BGSU
12. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2018

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−2.78
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• UKL 20-35 at UK10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• KUL 7-31 vs KU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• NIUL 16-24 at NIU15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• MEW 17-5 vs ME70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• MSUL 20-31 at MSU3% → 2%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −7
• BUFL 24-34 vs BUF29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• BALLL 23-24 vs BALL45% → 39%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −21, Clock −4
• WMUL 10-35 vs WMU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35
• AKRL 10-17 at AKR35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• EMUL 7-17 at EMU17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• BGSUL 13-24 vs BGSU64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• TOLL 13-51 at TOL9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12

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.