Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1352nd
  Defense+0.0671st
• 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.
  Offense44.5%58th
  Defense37.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1634th
  Defense+1.2437th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0647th
  Defense+0.0165th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2359th
  Defense+0.1263rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%70th
  Defense43.7%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.1%27th
  Defense25.0%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9960th
  Defense2.5187th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%73rd
  Defense20.3%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%59th
  Defense22.0%76th

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, 2019

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
   MTSU
2. W
   ARMY
3. L
   WIS
4. W
   RUTG
5. W
   IOWA
6. W
   ILL
7. L
   PSU
8. W
   ND
9. W
   MD
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    IU
12. L
    OSU
13. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2019

1. Shea PattersonQB316 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 70th of 228 QBs
   1.10WAR0.57 to 1.65
2. Zach CharbonnetRB128 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 76th of 349 RBs
   0.45WAR0.35 to 0.56
3. Hassan HaskinsRB85 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 140th of 349 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.39
4. Nico CollinsWR42 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 120th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
5. Ronnie BellWR50 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 129th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Donovan Peoples-JonesWR35 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 269th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Quinn NordinPK9 plays · +0.410 pts/play · 97th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Will HartP37 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 59th of 100 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85385311th of 130Roster talent: 853, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2712718th of 130Recruiting: 271, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%29th of 130Returning production: 75%, 29th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.7+20.710th of 130SP+ rating: +20.7, 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 NDQ2 1:07 4th & 2 at ND 43, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at PSUQ3 5:42 4th & 3 at midfield, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at IUQ2 0:44 4th & 2 at IU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs NDQ1 5:25 4th & 2 at ND 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs NDQ3 8:17 4th & 2 at MICH 24, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs ARMYQ1 1:40 4th & 10 at MICH 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs ARMYQ2 0:00 4th & 14 at ARMY 37, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at WISQ4 4:56 4th & 5 at WIS 5, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

64th 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

   MTSU
2. W

   ARMY
3. L

   WIS
4. W

   RUTG
5. W

   IOWA
6. W

   ILL
7. L

   PSU
8. W

   ND
9. W

   MD
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    IU
12. L

    OSU
13. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2019

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+0.16
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• MTSUW 40-21 vs MTSU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• ARMYW 24-21 vs ARMY94% → 44%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −50: Timeouts −17, Clock +10
• WISL 14-35 at WIS42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• RUTGW 52-0 vs RUTG97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• IOWAW 10-3 vs IOWA64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 42-25 at ILL95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• PSUL 21-28 at PSU35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −3
• NDW 45-14 vs ND56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts −1
• MDW 38-7 at MD92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• MSUW 44-10 vs MSU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• IUW 39-14 at IU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +33
• OSUL 27-56 vs OSU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• ALAL 16-35 at ALA28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, 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.