Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.0564th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%66th
  Defense42.3%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1613th
  Defense+1.1393rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2090th
  Defense+0.0267th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1130th
  Defense+0.1360th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%70th
  Defense46.2%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.9%47th
  Defense33.2%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2989th
  Defense2.6880th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%94th
  Defense17.6%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.1%91st
  Defense16.7%66th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UNM
2. L
   OU
3. W
   CMU
4. W
   NEB
5. W
   WIS
6. L
   USC
7. W
   WASH
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   PUR
10. W
    NU
11. W
    MD
12. L
    OSU
13. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan.

Players, 2025

1. Bryce UnderwoodQB329 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 108th of 231 QBs
   0.74WAR0.18 to 1.28
2. Jordan MarshallRB127 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 56th of 365 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.34
3. Justice HaynesRB102 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 108th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.27
4. Andrew MarshWR57 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 97th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
5. Donaven McCulleyWR61 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 106th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.27
6. Bryson KuzdzalRB71 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 191st of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Dominic ZvadaPK19 plays · +0.364 pts/play · 9th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Zack MarshallTE20 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 79th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  90790711th of 134Roster talent: 907, 11th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26526513th of 134Recruiting: 265, 13th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%55th of 132Returning production: 41%, 55th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.4+12.425th of 134SP+ rating: +12.4, 25th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.12 of the 0.17 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 WASHQ3 1:30 4th & 1 at MICH 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.3 pts
2. vs TEXQ2 2:44 4th & 1 at MICH 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
3. vs NUQ2 0:02 4th & 5 at NU 42, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
4. at NEBQ4 3:54 4th & 3 at NEB 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. vs NUQ4 4:20 4th & 1 at NU 24, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.4 pts
6. vs TEXQ3 9:37 4th & 2 at TEX 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
7. at OUQ3 6:33 4th & 2 at OU 23, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
8. at OUQ2 3:17 4th & 2 at OU 14, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

65th of 136 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

   UNM
2. L

   OU
3. W

   CMU
4. W

   NEB
5. W

   WIS
6. L

   USC
7. W

   WASH
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   PUR
10. W

    NU
11. W

    MD
12. L

    OSU
13. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2025

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+0.57
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• UNMW 34-17 vs UNM99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +5
• OUL 13-24 at OU38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• CMUW 63-3 vs CMU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NEBW 30-27 at NEB50% → 94%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• WISW 24-10 vs WIS89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• USCL 13-31 at USC43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• WASHW 24-7 vs WASH62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Clock −2
• MSUW 31-20 at MSU83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• PURW 21-16 vs PUR94% → 95%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• NUW 24-22 vs NU80% → 97%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• MDW 45-20 at MD85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• OSUL 9-27 vs OSU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• TEXL 27-41 vs TEX36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −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.