Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1152nd
  Defense0.0084th
• 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.
  Offense41.1%36th
  Defense39.6%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1824th
  Defense+1.2162nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0539th
  Defense−0.0692nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3382nd
  Defense+0.0972nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%53rd
  Defense45.4%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.8%14th
  Defense27.2%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7924th
  Defense2.8360th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%41st
  Defense21.7%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%49th
  Defense16.9%69th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SJSU
2. L
   PITT
3. L
   MICH
4. W
   WAG
5. W
   EMU
6. L
   AKR
7. W
   BGSU
8. W
   MASS
9. L
   WMU
10. W
    BUF
11. W
    KENT
12. L
    TOL
13. L
    NU

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

Players, 2025

1. Angel FloresQB97 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 140th of 231 QBs
   0.41WAR0.16 to 0.73
2. Nahree BigginsRB98 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 113th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
3. Joe LabasQB196 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 171st of 231 QBs
   0.18WAR−0.25 to 0.54
4. Brock TownsendRB70 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 161st of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
5. Langston LewisWR39 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 172nd of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
6. Trey CornistRB53 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 254th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Cade GrahamPK15 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 66th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Marcus BeamonQB35 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 202nd of 231 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.05 to 0.18

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  481481121st of 134Roster talent: 481, 121st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214293rd of 134Recruiting: 142, 93rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  10%10%124th of 132Returning production: 10%, 124th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.8−8.898th of 134SP+ rating: −8.8, 98th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.23 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. at PITTQ4 3:05 4th & 21 at PITT 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
2. at PITTQ4 3:05 4th & 21 at PITT 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
3. vs EMUQ3 3:47 4th & 1 at CMU 36, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs EMUQ3 3:47 4th & 1 at CMU 36, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at SJSUQ4 0:53 4th & 1 at CMU 29, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. vs TOLQ2 0:38 4th & 1 at TOL 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at KENTQ3 3:05 4th & 4 at KENT 42, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs EMUQ2 3:02 4th & 1 at CMU 37, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

30th of 136 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

   SJSU
2. L

   PITT
3. L

   MICH
4. W

   WAG
5. W

   EMU
6. L

   AKR
7. W

   BGSU
8. W

   MASS
9. L

   WMU
10. W

    BUF
11. W

    KENT
12. L

    TOL
13. L

    NU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.03
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts+0.44
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• SJSUW 16-14 at SJSU17% → 69%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• PITTL 17-45 at PITT6% → 51%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +7, Clock +2
• MICHL 3-63 at MICH3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• WAGW 49-10 vs WAG97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• EMUW 24-13 vs EMU56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +1
• AKRL 22-28 at AKR68% → 28%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −59, Timeouts +44
• BGSUW 27-6 at BGSU41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• MASSW 38-13 vs MASS88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• WMUL 21-24 at WMU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• BUFW 38-19 vs BUF48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +49, Clock −2
• KENTW 28-16 at KENT68% → 98%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• TOLL 3-21 vs TOL16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• NUL 7-34 at NU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20

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.