Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0113th
  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.
  Offense40.1%24th
  Defense38.3%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.051st
  Defense+1.2842nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0531st
  Defense+0.0270th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.018th
  Defense+0.1260th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%23rd
  Defense44.4%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%32nd
  Defense27.5%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0041st
  Defense2.7283rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.5%81st
  Defense17.8%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%62nd
  Defense18.8%77th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   FRES
2. L
   TEX
3. W
   ARST
4. W
   USC
5. W
   MINN
6. L
   WASH
7. L
   ILL
8. W
   MSU
9. L
   ORE
10. L
    IU
11. W
    NU
12. W
    OSU
13. W
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2024

1. Davis WarrenQB191 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 122nd of 232 QBs
   0.58WAR0.19 to 0.96
2. Kalel MullingsRB161 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 23rd of 373 RBs
   0.51WAR0.39 to 0.62
3. Alex OrjiQB80 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 150th of 232 QBs
   0.32WAR0.09 to 0.54
4. Donovan EdwardsRB126 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 133rd of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
5. Dominic ZvadaPK19 plays · +0.451 pts/play · 4th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
6. Colston LovelandTE47 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 12th of 221 TEs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.25
7. Jack TuttleQB52 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 206th of 232 QBs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.19
8. Tyler MorrisWR23 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 199th of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85985916th of 131Roster talent: 859, 16th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25925912th of 131Recruiting: 259, 12th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%106th of 130Returning production: 26%, 106th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.6+10.626th of 131SP+ rating: +10.6, 26th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.21 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 OSUQ4 0:45 4th & 3 at OSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs ALAQ4 7:21 4th & 1 at ALA 19, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. vs OREQ4 7:24 4th & 5 at ORE 10, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
4. vs ALAQ2 0:58 4th & 3 at ALA 47, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs USCQ2 1:47 4th & 3 at MICH 48, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at IUQ3 8:41 4th & 3 at IU 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at IUQ3 0:08 4th & 5 at IU 38, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs ALAQ1 2:04 4th & 3 at ALA 3, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

21st of 134 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

   FRES
2. L

   TEX
3. W

   ARST
4. W

   USC
5. W

   MINN
6. L

   WASH
7. L

   ILL
8. W

   MSU
9. L

   ORE
10. L

    IU
11. W

    NU
12. W

    OSU
13. W

    ALA

What moved it, 2024

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+0.93
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.74

Game by game

• FRESW 30-10 vs FRES91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15
• TEXL 12-31 vs TEX27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• ARSTW 28-18 vs ARST91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16
• USCW 27-24 vs USC38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• MINNW 27-24 vs MINN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• WASHL 17-27 at WASH49% → 3%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• ILLL 7-21 at ILL65% → 2%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• MSUW 24-17 vs MSU61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −3
• OREL 17-38 vs ORE16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• IUL 15-20 at IU17% → 5%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• NUW 50-6 vs NU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• OSUW 13-10 at OSU9% → 95%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• ALAW 19-13 vs ALA12% → 96%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +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.