Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2272nd
  Defense+0.0488th
• 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.
  Offense46.6%78th
  Defense38.5%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1921st
  Defense+1.1982nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1867th
  Defense−0.0191st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2766th
  Defense+0.0888th
• 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%60th
  Defense44.6%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.0%94th
  Defense26.3%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1762nd
  Defense2.7978th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%79th
  Defense16.7%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.4%99th
  Defense16.5%47th

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, 2021

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
   WMU
2. W
   WASH
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   RUTG
5. W
   WIS
6. W
   NEB
7. W
   NU
8. L
   MSU
9. W
   IU
10. W
    PSU
11. W
    MD
12. W
    OSU
13. W
    IOWA
14. L
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2021

1. Cade McNamaraQB340 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 49th of 219 QBs
   1.72WAR1.04 to 2.37
2. Hassan HaskinsRB252 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 5th of 387 RBs
   1.13WAR0.91 to 1.35
3. Blake CorumRB144 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 64th of 387 RBs
   0.51WAR0.37 to 0.63
4. Brad RobbinsP42 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 9th of 101 punters
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
5. Cornelius JohnsonWR59 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
6. Jake MoodyPK20 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 20th of 128 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Roman WilsonWR27 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
8. Mike SainristilDB25 plays · +0.134 pts/play
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83383315th of 130Roster talent: 833, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25825812th of 130Recruiting: 258, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%99th of 128Returning production: 54%, 99th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.4+23.44th of 130SP+ rating: +23.4, 4th 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, 2021

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 0.11 of the 0.15 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 PSUQ4 12:46 4th & 1 at MICH 10, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.4 pts
2. at WISQ3 0:55 4th & 1 at MICH 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.0 pts
3. vs IUQ3 12:05 4th & 1 at MICH 30, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. at NEBQ3 10:45 4th & 1 at MICH 34, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
5. at NEBQ2 3:19 4th & 3 at NEB 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
6. at MSUQ2 9:18 4th & 2 at MSU 20, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
7. vs NUQ2 2:33 4th & 2 at NU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. vs RUTGQ4 13:10 4th & 3 at MICH 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

12th 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

   WMU
2. W

   WASH
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   RUTG
5. W

   WIS
6. W

   NEB
7. W

   NU
8. L

   MSU
9. W

   IU
10. W

    PSU
11. W

    MD
12. W

    OSU
13. W

    IOWA
14. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2021

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+2.65
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• WMUW 47-14 vs WMU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• WASHW 31-10 vs WASH68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• NIUW 63-10 vs NIU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• RUTGW 20-13 vs RUTG90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• WISW 38-17 at WIS42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• NEBW 32-29 at NEB59% → 93%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• NUW 33-7 vs NU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• MSUL 33-37 at MSU64% → 5%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• IUW 29-7 vs IU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• PSUW 21-17 at PSU57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• MDW 59-18 at MD84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• OSUW 42-27 vs OSU33% → 99%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• IOWAW 42-3 at IOWA79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27
• UGAL 11-34 vs UGA27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −34, 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.