Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0112th
  Defense+0.1338th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%22nd
  Defense40.7%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2758th
  Defense+1.3032nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0018th
  Defense+0.0749th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1222nd
  Defense+0.2241st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.3%8th
  Defense46.8%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%71st
  Defense28.9%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1558th
  Defense2.9075th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%72nd
  Defense18.0%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%9th
  Defense20.6%93rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   OKST
2. L
   USA
3. W
   BUCK
4. L
   PSU
5. L
   TOL
6. L
   BALL
7. W
   AKR
8. L
   BGSU
9. W
   NIU
10. W
    BUF
11. L
    WMU
12. L
    EMU

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

Players, 2022

1. Daniel RichardsonQB226 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 92nd of 234 QBs
   0.83WAR0.32 to 1.31
2. Jase BauerQB81 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 151st of 234 QBs
   0.30WAR0.12 to 0.48
3. Lew Nichols IIIRB130 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 117th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
4. Carlos CarriereWR47 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 87th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
5. Luke ElzingaP43 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 17th of 102 punters
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
6. Bert Emanuel Jr.WR49 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 203rd of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
7. Joel WilsonTE34 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 44th of 214 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
8. Marshall MeederPK8 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 79th of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  384384113th of 129Roster talent: 384, 113th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014095th of 129Recruiting: 140, 95th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%48th of 128Returning production: 67%, 48th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.0−14.0109th of 129SP+ rating: −14.0, 109th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.26 of the 0.32 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 3:13 4th & 19 at BALL 39, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−7.0 pts
2. vs BALLQ4 0:11 4th & 9 at CMU 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
3. vs BALLQ4 0:53 4th & 4 at BALL 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.6 pts
4. vs BUFQ4 3:30 4th & 4 at BUF 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at NIUQ3 1:28 4th & 15 at NIU 33, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
6. vs BGSUQ2 2:44 4th & 1 at CMU 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at EMUQ2 8:19 4th & 1 at CMU 20, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at TOLQ4 10:56 4th & 10 at TOL 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

130th of 131 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

   OKST
2. L

   USA
3. W

   BUCK
4. L

   PSU
5. L

   TOL
6. L

   BALL
7. W

   AKR
8. L

   BGSU
9. W

   NIU
10. W

    BUF
11. L

    WMU
12. L

    EMU

What moved it, 2022

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−1.51
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• OKSTL 44-58 at OKST8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• USAL 24-38 vs USA67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• BUCKW 41-0 vs BUCK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• PSUL 14-33 at PSU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −8
• TOLL 17-38 at TOL35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• BALLL 16-17 vs BALL73% → 6%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• AKRW 28-21 at AKR84% → 67%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −17: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −2
• BGSUL 18-34 vs BGSU66% → 2%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• NIUW 35-22 at NIU36% → 98%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• BUFW 31-27 vs BUF61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• WMUL 10-12 vs WMU79% → 80%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +1
• EMUL 19-38 at EMU53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −3

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.