Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0322nd
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%12th
  Defense32.0%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.2822nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0756th
  Defense−0.0276th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0115th
  Defense−0.1198th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.2%12th
  Defense36.6%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.
  Offense31.5%33rd
  Defense24.2%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8343rd
  Defense2.2497th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%69th
  Defense29.9%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%40th
  Defense24.3%99th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   FLA
2. W
   CIN
3. W
   AF
4. W
   PUR
5. L
   MSU
6. W
   IU
7. L
   PSU
8. W
   RUTG
9. W
   MINN
10. W
    MD
11. L
    WIS
12. L
    OSU
13. L
    SC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2017

1. Karan HigdonRB162 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 41st of 352 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.56
2. John O'KornQB175 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 147th of 226 QBs
   0.33WAR0.02 to 0.63
3. Chris EvansRB122 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 115th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
4. Brandon PetersQB111 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 168th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR0.11 to 0.42
5. Ty Isaac?69 plays · +0.180 pts/play
   0.23WAR0.18 to 0.29
6. Wilton SpeightQB72 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 176th of 226 QBs
   0.20WAR0.06 to 0.33
7. Quinn NordinPK21 plays · +0.473 pts/play · 8th of 110 kickers
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.26
8. Grant PerryWR35 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 254th of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8748747th of 130Roster talent: 874, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25125115th of 130Recruiting: 251, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%62nd of 128Returning production: 62%, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.6+19.613th of 128SP+ rating: +19.6, 13th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 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. at IUQ4 1:05 4th & 3 at IU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. vs MSUQ4 3:58 4th & 7 at MICH 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at PSUQ2 9:41 4th & 1 at MICH 45, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at FLAQ3 4:04 4th & 4 at FLA 43, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs RUTGQ3 1:00 4th & 1 at RUTG 19, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs MSUQ3 11:38 4th & 2 at MICH 45, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs MSUQ4 7:49 4th & 5 at MICH 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs OSUQ1 1:14 4th & 3 at OSU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

107th of 130 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

   FLA
2. W

   CIN
3. W

   AF
4. W

   PUR
5. L

   MSU
6. W

   IU
7. L

   PSU
8. W

   RUTG
9. W

   MINN
10. W

    MD
11. L

    WIS
12. L

    OSU
13. L

    SC

What moved it, 2017

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−0.22
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.01

Game by game

• FLAW 33-17 at FLA62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• CINW 36-14 vs CIN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• AFW 29-13 vs AF94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11, Clock −1
• PURW 28-10 at PUR84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• MSUL 10-14 vs MSU84% → 18%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −38, Clock −4
• IUW 27-20 at IU74% → 77%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +16
• PSUL 13-42 at PSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30
• RUTGW 35-14 vs RUTG94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• MINNW 33-10 vs MINN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• MDW 35-10 at MD88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• WISL 10-24 at WIS38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• OSUL 20-31 vs OSU19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• SCL 19-26 at SC74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −44, 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.