Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1774th
  Defense−0.0491st
• 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.
  Offense47.1%81st
  Defense33.8%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1526th
  Defense+1.411st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1061st
  Defense+0.0271st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3386th
  Defense−0.1098th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.9%83rd
  Defense39.2%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%65th
  Defense24.4%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9859th
  Defense2.4295th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%81st
  Defense23.7%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%90th
  Defense18.2%77th

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, 2018

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
   ND
2. W
   WMU
3. W
   SMU
4. W
   NEB
5. W
   NU
6. W
   MD
7. W
   WIS
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   PSU
10. W
    RUTG
11. W
    IU
12. L
    OSU
13. L
    FLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2018

1. Shea PattersonQB294 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 61st of 225 QBs
   1.35WAR0.89 to 1.91
2. Karan HigdonRB196 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 12th of 351 RBs
   0.78WAR0.61 to 0.94
3. Chris EvansRB58 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 248th of 351 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
4. Nico CollinsWR40 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 140th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Quinn NordinPK13 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 61st of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Zach GentryTE35 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 15th of 204 TEs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Donovan Peoples-JonesWR43 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 315th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
8. Grant PerryWR29 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 352nd of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8628628th of 130Roster talent: 862, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25025015th of 130Recruiting: 250, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%38th of 129Returning production: 76%, 38th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.0+22.010th of 130SP+ rating: +22.0, 10th of 130 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, 2018

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 4 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 PSUQ3 9:26 4th & 1 at MICH 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at NDQ3 13:42 4th & 10 at ND 16, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. vs IUQ3 2:08 4th & 2 at IU 15, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs IUQ4 9:55 4th & 3 at IU 5, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at NUQ3 0:00 4th & 4 at NU 6, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at MSUQ2 5:42 4th & 5 at MSU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs IUQ4 2:37 4th & 2 at IU 11, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs FLAQ2 10:08 4th & 1 at MICH 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

82nd 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. L

   ND
2. W

   WMU
3. W

   SMU
4. W

   NEB
5. W

   NU
6. W

   MD
7. W

   WIS
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   PSU
10. W

    RUTG
11. W

    IU
12. L

    OSU
13. L

    FLA

What moved it, 2018

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+0.19
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.96

Game by game

• NDL 17-24 at ND56% → 3%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• WMUW 49-3 vs WMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• SMUW 45-20 vs SMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NEBW 56-10 vs NEB89% → 98%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17
• NUW 20-17 at NU85% → 78%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +24, Clock +2
• MDW 42-21 vs MD88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• WISW 38-13 vs WIS75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −1
• MSUW 21-7 at MSU68% → 98%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• PSUW 42-7 vs PSU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• RUTGW 42-7 at RUTG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• IUW 31-20 vs IU97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 39-62 at OSU59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 15-41 vs FLA65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −63, Possession & field position −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.