Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.0383rd
• 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.
  Offense41.0%37th
  Defense40.8%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2025th
  Defense+1.3424th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0958th
  Defense−0.1094th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1243rd
  Defense+0.1852nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%63rd
  Defense41.4%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.7%4th
  Defense39.4%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8343rd
  Defense2.5286th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%93rd
  Defense23.0%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%58th
  Defense17.2%58th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   OHIO
2. W
   NIU
3. L
   WMU
4. W
   EMU
5. L
   BALL
6. L
   TOL

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

Players, 2020

1. Kobe LewisRB117 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 102nd of 338 RBs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.39
2. Lew Nichols IIIRB76 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 106th of 338 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.35
3. Daniel RichardsonQB104 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 133rd of 212 QBs
   0.19WAR0.02 to 0.37
4. Kalil PimpletonWR49 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 83rd of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Ty BrockQB71 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 167th of 212 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.06 to 0.27
6. JaCorey SullivanWR26 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 250th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Tyrone ScottWR6 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 382nd of 409 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  350350105th of 127Roster talent: 350, 105th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127111th of 127Recruiting: 127, 111th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%9th of 127Returning production: 89%, 9th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.8−1.879th of 127SP+ rating: −1.8, 79th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.18 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 OHIOQ4 5:11 4th & 1 at CMU 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.9 pts
2. vs OHIOQ4 9:05 4th & 2 at OHIO 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. at TOLQ4 7:45 4th & 4 at CMU 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at TOLQ3 3:02 4th & 4 at TOL 29, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at EMUQ2 9:22 4th & 2 at CMU 20, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs WMUQ4 13:22 4th & 3 at CMU 18, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at EMUQ2 3:58 4th & 4 at EMU 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at TOLQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at TOL 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

60th of 127 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

   OHIO
2. W

   NIU
3. L

   WMU
4. W

   EMU
5. L

   BALL
6. L

   TOL

What moved it, 2020

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−0.14
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.11

Game by game

• OHIOW 30-27 vs OHIO48% → 88%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +2
• NIUW 40-10 at NIU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• WMUL 44-52 vs WMU53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• EMUW 31-23 at EMU71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• BALLL 20-45 vs BALL45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• TOLL 23-24 at TOL22% → 15%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −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.