Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1776th
  Defense−0.0388th
• 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.
  Offense46.8%80th
  Defense34.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1838th
  Defense+1.2621st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1378th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2672nd
  Defense−0.1199th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%67th
  Defense40.0%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.2%94th
  Defense26.5%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0069th
  Defense2.6671st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.2%98th
  Defense20.2%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%28th
  Defense3.0%92nd

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, 2015

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. L
   UTAH
2. W
   ORST
3. W
   UNLV
4. W
   BYU
5. W
   MD
6. W
   NU
7. L
   MSU
8. W
   MINN
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    IU
11. W
    PSU
12. L
    OSU
13. W
    FLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2015

1. Jake RudockQB336 plays · +0.334 pts/play · 24th of 205 QBs
   2.10WAR1.54 to 2.77
2. De'Veon SmithRB156 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 86th of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.40
3. Jehu ChessonWR65 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 43rd of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.35
4. Amara DarbohWR67 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 72nd of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
5. Kenny AllenPK15 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 67th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Drake JohnsonRB43 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 213th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Derrick GreenRB12 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 254th of 333 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03
8. Sione HoumaFB8 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 286th of 333 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 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 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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8518519th of 128Roster talent: 851, 9th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421427th of 128Recruiting: 214, 27th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%81st of 127Returning production: 51%, 81st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.7+19.710th of 128SP+ rating: +19.7, 10th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 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 IUQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at IU 5, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.9 pts
2. at PSUQ3 7:28 4th & 2 at PSU 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs MSUQ3 2:06 4th & 3 at MSU 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs MSUQ3 13:05 4th & 1 at MICH 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs MSUQ4 9:25 4th & 2 at MSU 20, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at MINNQ3 3:28 4th & 5 at MINN 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at IUQ4 6:30 4th & 2 at IU 2, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at UTAHQ1 1:54 4th & 1 at UTAH 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

36th 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. L

   UTAH
2. W

   ORST
3. W

   UNLV
4. W

   BYU
5. W

   MD
6. W

   NU
7. L

   MSU
8. W

   MINN
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    IU
11. W

    PSU
12. L

    OSU
13. W

    FLA

What moved it, 2015

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+1.44
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.98

Game by game

• UTAHL 17-24 at UTAH39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −3
• ORSTW 35-7 vs ORST84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20
• UNLVW 28-7 vs UNLV98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• BYUW 31-0 vs BYU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33
• MDW 28-0 at MD81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• NUW 38-0 vs NU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• MSUL 23-27 vs MSU68% → 15%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −42, Clock −5
• MINNW 29-26 at MINN76% → 63%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −13: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position −6
• RUTGW 49-16 vs RUTG92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• IUW 48-41 at IU79% → 77%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +15
• PSUW 28-16 at PSU58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• OSUL 13-42 vs OSU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• FLAW 41-7 at FLA60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2

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.