Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0941st
  Defense+0.255th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%28th
  Defense45.5%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2652nd
  Defense+1.3125th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1677th
  Defense+0.208th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1327th
  Defense+0.3710th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%34th
  Defense52.8%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%36th
  Defense29.0%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3277th
  Defense3.4011th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%83rd
  Defense13.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%70th
  Defense14.7%17th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MSU
2. W
   UNH
3. L
   ND
4. W
   USA
5. W
   EMU
6. L
   BUF
7. W
   AKR
8. L
   BALL
9. W
   NIU
10. L
    WMU
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    TOL

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

Players, 2023

1. Jase BauerQB290 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 57th of 250 QBs
   1.40WAR0.74 to 2.27
2. Marion LukesRB143 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 59th of 383 RBs
   0.33WAR0.20 to 0.45
3. Jesse Prewitt IIIWR40 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 136th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.24
4. Myles BaileyRB70 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 216th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
5. Chris ParkerWR35 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 223rd of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.16
6. Jake WalrathP45 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 84th of 103 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Mitchel CollierTE12 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 119th of 212 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Bert Emanuel Jr.WR23 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 286th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  333333125th of 130Roster talent: 333, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414486th of 130Recruiting: 144, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%97th of 128Returning production: 36%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.1−19.1123rd of 130SP+ rating: −19.1, 123rd 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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. vs UNHQ3 9:01 4th & 16 at CMU 43, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
2. at WMUQ4 10:19 4th & 3 at WMU 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at BALLQ4 4:32 4th & 5 at BALL 10, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs NIUQ4 1:43 4th & 2 at CMU 30, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs NIUQ4 7:23 4th & 2 at CMU 38, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at MSUQ2 5:52 4th & 1 at CMU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs AKRQ2 2:39 4th & 5 at AKR 34, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at BUFQ3 11:21 4th & 8 at CMU 47, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

59th of 133 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

   MSU
2. W

   UNH
3. L

   ND
4. W

   USA
5. W

   EMU
6. L

   BUF
7. W

   AKR
8. L

   BALL
9. W

   NIU
10. L

    WMU
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2023

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−0.46
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.43

Game by game

• MSUL 7-31 at MSU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• UNHW 45-42 vs UNH68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• NDL 17-41 at ND2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• USAW 34-30 at USA11% → 82%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• EMUW 26-23 vs EMU69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• BUFL 13-37 at BUF53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• AKRW 17-10 vs AKR74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• BALLL 17-24 at BALL66% → 3%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• NIUW 37-31 vs NIU36% → 89%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +2
• WMUL 28-38 at WMU39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• OHIOL 20-34 at OHIO20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• TOLL 17-32 vs TOL21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −31, Clock −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.