Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0829th
  Defense+0.1919th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%16th
  Defense39.9%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2541st
  Defense+1.418th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1983rd
  Defense+0.1330th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.075th
  Defense+0.2522nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%40th
  Defense45.4%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.0%2nd
  Defense30.1%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2072nd
  Defense3.0050th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.4%93rd
  Defense17.3%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%11th
  Defense17.6%67th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   CCSU
2. L
   FIU
3. L
   ILL
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   SDSU
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   EMU
8. L
   M-OH
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    WMU
12. L
    NIU

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

Players, 2024

1. Marion LukesRB155 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 42nd of 373 RBs
   0.42WAR0.32 to 0.55
2. Tyler JeffersonQB69 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 167th of 232 QBs
   0.24WAR0.08 to 0.39
3. B.J. HarrisRB87 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 174th of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
4. Joe LabasQB145 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 191st of 232 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.11 to 0.44
5. Jadyn GlasserQB63 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 201st of 232 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.04 to 0.24
6. Myles BaileyRB49 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 236th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Tristan MattsonPK17 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 42nd of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Jesse Prewitt IIIWR19 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 315th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  467467117th of 131Roster talent: 467, 117th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714786th of 131Recruiting: 147, 86th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%55th of 130Returning production: 52%, 55th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.8−15.8117th of 131SP+ rating: −15.8, 117th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.14 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 SDSUQ4 14:50 4th & 2 at CMU 38, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs SDSUQ4 14:50 4th & 2 at CMU 38, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at EMUQ3 2:09 4th & 2 at EMU 33, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at EMUQ3 7:29 4th & 5 at EMU 38, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs SDSUQ2 4:23 4th & 1 at CMU 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at M-OHQ3 7:34 4th & 1 at CMU 20, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs BALLQ2 13:28 4th & 2 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at EMUQ4 8:27 4th & 2 at CMU 16, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

97th of 134 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

   CCSU
2. L

   FIU
3. L

   ILL
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   SDSU
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   EMU
8. L

   M-OH
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    WMU
12. L

    NIU

What moved it, 2024

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−1.77
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.14
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.44

Game by game

• CCSUW 66-10 vs CCSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• FIUL 16-52 at FIU64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −57, Possession & field position +1
• ILLL 9-30 at ILL9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• BALLW 37-34 vs BALL69% → 84%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +3
• SDSUW 22-21 vs SDSU58% → 81%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +4
• OHIOL 25-27 vs OHIO47% → 5%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• EMUL 34-38 at EMU45% → 8%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +7
• M-OHL 7-46 at M-OH24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• BGSUL 13-23 vs BGSU15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• TOLL 10-37 at TOL16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20
• WMUW 16-14 vs WMU32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• NIUL 16-24 at NIU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, 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.