Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1455th
  Defense+0.0475th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%78th
  Defense40.4%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1528th
  Defense+1.2722nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1058th
  Defense−0.0893rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1947th
  Defense+0.1557th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%82nd
  Defense46.1%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%47th
  Defense30.1%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2284th
  Defense2.3895th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%91st
  Defense28.4%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%63rd
  Defense23.2%84th

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, 2019

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
   UALB
2. L
   WIS
3. W
   AKR
4. L
   MIA
5. L
   WMU
6. W
   EMU
7. W
   NMSU
8. W
   BGSU
9. L
   BUF
10. W
    NIU
11. W
    BALL
12. W
    TOL
13. L
    M-OH
14. L
    SDSU

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

Players, 2019

1. Quinten DormadyQB242 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 89th of 228 QBs
   0.89WAR0.54 to 1.29
2. Jonathan WardRB166 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 65th of 349 RBs
   0.49WAR0.34 to 0.62
3. David MooreQB120 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 136th of 228 QBs
   0.44WAR0.26 to 0.63
4. Kobe LewisRB110 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 165th of 349 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
5. Kalil PimpletonWR80 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 41st of 439 WRs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.34
6. JaCorey SullivanWR64 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 80th of 439 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
7. Tommy LazzaroQB23 plays · +0.371 pts/play · 194th of 228 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
8. Ryan TicePK13 plays · +0.419 pts/play · 75th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41741799th of 130Roster talent: 417, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122108th of 130Recruiting: 122, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  12%12%128th of 130Returning production: 12%, 128th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.4−4.484th of 130SP+ rating: −4.4, 84th 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, 2019

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 0.02 of the 0.07 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 M-OHQ3 3:48 4th & 1 at CMU 22, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at SDSUQ1 0:32 4th & 1 at CMU 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at WMUQ2 6:43 4th & 1 at CMU 13, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at SDSUQ1 5:54 4th & 1 at CMU 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs EMUQ1 0:09 4th & 2 at EMU 26, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at MIAQ3 1:27 4th & 7 at MIA 37, down 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs M-OHQ2 8:26 4th & 2 at CMU 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at BGSUQ2 8:04 4th & 6 at BGSU 33, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

27th 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

   UALB
2. L

   WIS
3. W

   AKR
4. L

   MIA
5. L

   WMU
6. W

   EMU
7. W

   NMSU
8. W

   BGSU
9. L

   BUF
10. W

    NIU
11. W

    BALL
12. W

    TOL
13. L

    M-OH
14. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• UALBW 38-21 vs UALB87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• WISL 0-61 at WIS2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• AKRW 45-24 vs AKR51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position +1
• MIAL 12-17 at MIA3% → 4%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −8, Timeouts −1
• WMUL 15-31 at WMU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position +1
• EMUW 42-16 vs EMU37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Possession & field position +1
• NMSUW 42-28 vs NMSU73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• BGSUW 38-20 at BGSU77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• BUFL 20-43 at BUF44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• NIUW 48-10 vs NIU42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52, Possession & field position +1
• BALLW 45-44 at BALL46% → 85%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• TOLW 49-7 vs TOL80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• M-OHL 21-26 vs M-OH68% → 10%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −47, Clock −4
• SDSUL 11-48 at SDSU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37, 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.