Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1254th
  Defense−0.0797th
• 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.
  Offense45.1%66th
  Defense31.2%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1223rd
  Defense+1.2914th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0952nd
  Defense−0.0176th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1958th
  Defense−0.1398th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%63rd
  Defense36.0%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%59th
  Defense24.1%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8132nd
  Defense1.9599th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%43rd
  Defense28.4%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%59th
  Defense24.3%99th

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, 2016

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
   HAW
2. W
   UCF
3. W
   COLO
4. W
   PSU
5. W
   WIS
6. W
   RUTG
7. W
   ILL
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   MD
10. L
    IOWA
11. W
    IU
12. L
    OSU
13. L
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2016

1. Wilton SpeightQB239 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 102nd of 218 QBs
   0.78WAR0.40 to 1.15
2. De'Veon SmithRB120 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 118th of 347 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.42
3. Amara DarbohWR61 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
4. Jehu ChessonWR44 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 132nd of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Kenny AllenPK14 plays · +0.310 pts/play · 72nd of 116 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
6. Jake ButtTE38 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 27th of 195 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.03 to 0.09
7. Eddie McDoomWR9 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 392nd of 417 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Khalid HillFB9 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 292nd of 347 RBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8538538th of 128Roster talent: 853, 8th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23623619th of 128Recruiting: 236, 19th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%100th of 128Returning production: 50%, 100th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.4+24.46th of 128SP+ rating: +24.4, 6th 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.11 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 WISQ4 11:14 4th & 2 at MICH 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs IUQ4 12:20 4th & 3 at IU 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at FSUQ3 4:37 4th & 3 at midfield, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at MSUQ4 3:55 4th & 3 at MSU 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs COLOQ4 12:28 4th & 4 at COLO 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at FSUQ4 0:16 4th & 10 at MICH 25, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs WISQ4 2:59 4th & 6 at WIS 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs IUQ2 2:37 4th & 4 at MICH 30, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

98th 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

   HAW
2. W

   UCF
3. W

   COLO
4. W

   PSU
5. W

   WIS
6. W

   RUTG
7. W

   ILL
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   MD
10. L

    IOWA
11. W

    IU
12. L

    OSU
13. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.05
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.15

Game by game

• HAWW 63-3 vs HAW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UCFW 51-14 vs UCF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• COLOW 45-28 vs COLO90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15
• PSUW 49-10 vs PSU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• WISW 14-7 vs WIS79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• RUTGW 78-0 at RUTG95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• ILLW 41-8 vs ILL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MSUW 32-23 at MSU93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• MDW 59-3 vs MD95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• IOWAL 13-14 at IOWA89% → 6%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −2
• IUW 20-10 vs IU96% → 96%Before kickoff +46 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +10
• OSUL 27-30 at OSU34% → 15%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +20
• FSUL 32-33 at FSU64% → 8%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −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.