Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0822nd
  Defense+0.0979th
• 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.
  Offense42.7%50th
  Defense41.0%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1222nd
  Defense+1.0692nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1050th
  Defense0.0082nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0716th
  Defense+0.2149th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%67th
  Defense46.0%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.
  Offense28.9%16th
  Defense31.6%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9550th
  Defense2.5780th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%51st
  Defense24.2%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%14th
  Defense1.8%38th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   APP
2. L
   ND
3. W
   M-OH
4. L
   UTAH
5. L
   MINN
6. L
   RUTG
7. W
   PSU
8. L
   MSU
9. W
   IU
10. W
    NU
11. L
    MD
12. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2014

1. Devin GardnerQB289 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 102nd of 199 QBs
   1.00WAR0.48 to 1.49
2. De'Veon SmithRB84 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 150th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
3. Devin FunchessWR77 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Amara DarbohWR40 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 163rd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Matt WilePK16 plays · +0.382 pts/play · 51st of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Drake JohnsonRB45 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 212th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Derrick GreenRB50 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 217th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Jehu ChessonWR16 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 307th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 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 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 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 0.16 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 PSUQ3 5:56 4th & 1 at MICH 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at NUQ2 4:19 4th & 3 at NU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at NUQ4 3:10 4th & 3 at NU 20, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at OSUQ4 8:25 4th & 14 at OSU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. vs PSUQ2 5:08 4th & 2 at PSU 28, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs MINNQ3 13:41 4th & 2 at MICH 20, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs IUQ3 8:31 4th & 4 at IU 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs M-OHQ3 12:59 4th & 1 at MICH 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

116th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Michigan's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   APP
2. L

   ND
3. W

   M-OH
4. L

   UTAH
5. L

   MINN
6. L

   RUTG
7. W

   PSU
8. L

   MSU
9. W

   IU
10. W

    NU
11. L

    MD
12. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at 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−1.74
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• APPW 52-14 vs APP98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NDL 0-31 at ND35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +1
• M-OHW 34-10 vs M-OH97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• UTAHL 10-26 vs UTAH70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• MINNL 14-30 vs MINN78% → 1%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• RUTGL 24-26 at RUTG45% → 5%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• PSUW 18-13 vs PSU46% → 97%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +4
• MSUL 11-35 at MSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17
• IUW 34-10 vs IU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• NUW 10-9 at NU47% → 76%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +5
• MDL 16-23 vs MD59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• OSUL 28-42 at OSU9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Michigan's side.

Closest call

WMU 12-13 MICH (2026) - Michigan dropped to a 3.0% win probability before pulling it out.