Central Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0623rd
  Defense+0.2212th
• 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.
  Offense39.2%19th
  Defense48.1%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1626th
  Defense+1.1091st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2180th
  Defense+0.2015th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.211st
  Defense+0.1942nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%21st
  Defense52.2%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.3%16th
  Defense37.8%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4582nd
  Defense3.701st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.6%82nd
  Defense12.0%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%64th
  Defense14.7%34th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   UNM
2. W
   COLG
3. W
   WYO
4. L
   MIA
5. W
   AKR
6. L
   OHIO

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

Players, 2026

1. Angel FloresQB93 plays · +0.309 pts/play · 11th of 192 QBs
   0.54WAR0.29 to 0.76
2. Vaughn BlueRB15 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 234th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
3. Langston LewisWR8 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 262nd of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
4. Brock TownsendRB6 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 259th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
5. Declan DuleyP13 plays · −0.013 pts/play · 71st of 84 punters
   0.00WAR−0.02 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  540540125th of 138Roster talent: 540, 125th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  151151102nd of 138Recruiting: 151, 102nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%51st of 136Returning production: 54%, 51st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.7−16.7126th of 138SP+ rating so far: −16.7, 126th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.10 of the 0.12 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 COLGQ4 2:41 4th & 4 at COLG 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.3 pts
2. vs COLGQ2 2:51 4th & 12 at COLG 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
3. vs WYOQ4 11:32 4th & 2 at CMU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs COLGQ4 9:23 4th & 9 at COLG 47, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs WYOQ4 4:01 4th & 6 at WYO 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs WYOQ3 9:19 4th & 2 at CMU 24, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs WYOQ1 4:42 4th & 2 at CMU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs WYOQ1 8:58 4th & 2 at WYO 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

58th of 138 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

   UNM
2. W

   COLG
3. W

   WYO
4. L

   MIA
5. W

   AKR
6. L

   OHIO

What moved it, 2026

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+0.24
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.04

Game by game

• UNML 7-38 at UNM23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −25
• COLGW 13-10 vs COLG91% → 96%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• WYOW 24-10 vs WYO49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• MIAL 3-52 at MIA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• AKRW 41-17 vs AKR66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +37, Clock −2
• OHIOL 14-31 at OHIO44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Clock +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.