Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2488th
  Defense−0.0697th
• 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.
  Offense49.9%93rd
  Defense36.6%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2136th
  Defense+1.1968th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2392nd
  Defense−0.0491st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2972nd
  Defense−0.0699th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.9%95th
  Defense44.2%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%59th
  Defense21.9%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1456th
  Defense2.6888th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%52nd
  Defense16.8%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.7%93rd
  Defense16.2%52nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   CSU
2. W
   HAW
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   MD
5. W
   IOWA
6. W
   IU
7. W
   PSU
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    NEB
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    OSU
13. W
    PUR
14. L
    TCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2022

1. J.J. McCarthyQB304 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 30th of 234 QBs
   1.86WAR1.27 to 2.51
2. Blake CorumRB176 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 14th of 384 RBs
   0.63WAR0.45 to 0.78
3. Donovan EdwardsRB119 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 79th of 384 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.43
4. Jake MoodyPK25 plays · +0.392 pts/play · 2nd of 110 kickers
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
5. Ronnie BellWR56 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
6. Luke SchoonmakerTE37 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 36th of 214 TEs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Roman WilsonWR26 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 226th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Cornelius JohnsonWR31 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84784714th of 129Roster talent: 847, 14th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26626610th of 129Recruiting: 266, 10th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%22nd of 128Returning production: 78%, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +32.0+32.02nd of 129SP+ rating: +32.0, 2nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.14 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 ILLQ4 4:32 4th & 4 at ILL 23, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
2. vs PSUQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at PSU 5, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at OSUQ2 2:18 4th & 1 at MICH 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs PURQ3 7:38 4th & 1 at MICH 10, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at IUQ4 13:24 4th & 1 at MICH 31, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at RUTGQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at RUTG 32, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at OSUQ4 9:21 4th & 7 at OSU 39, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs TCUQ3 9:29 4th & 4 at TCU 4, down 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

28th of 131 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

   CSU
2. W

   HAW
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   MD
5. W

   IOWA
6. W

   IU
7. W

   PSU
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    NEB
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    OSU
13. W

    PUR
14. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2022

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+1.59
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.67

Game by game

• CSUW 51-7 vs CSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• HAWW 56-10 vs HAW100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CONNW 59-0 vs CONN100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MDW 34-27 vs MD89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• IOWAW 27-14 at IOWA78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• IUW 31-10 at IU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• PSUW 41-17 vs PSU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• MSUW 29-7 vs MSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• RUTGW 52-17 at RUTG95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• NEBW 34-3 vs NEB97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ILLW 19-17 vs ILL89% → 84%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• OSUW 45-23 at OSU25% → 100%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +66, Clock +3
• PURW 43-22 vs PUR88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• TCUL 45-51 vs TCU73% → 4%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3

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.