Week 4 report · Sat, Sep 26 · 2026 Week 4
Central Michigan
3–5 · Ours #129 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
3–52FinalWe had CMU 1 – MIA 47
AP #6Miami
7–0 · Ours #8 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.MIA 100%MIA won
MIA 100%MIA wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at MIA −42.MIA −41oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. −45.7 · MIA covered by 8
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 47.4.52.5final 55 · over by 2.5
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.No call
Quarterbacksthis game
Jadyn Glasser13/15 · 88 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.3373rd pct
- Comp %
- 86.7
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Replaced Angel Flores in Q2
Darian Mensah23/27 · 338 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.4482nd pct
- Comp %
- 85.2
- TD
- 3
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Relieved in Q3 by Luke Nickel
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Central Michiganoffense | Played like MIA +58.8Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseMiami | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd | 20.8%▼19.6 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 20.8%▲19.3 | 97th |
| 3rd | −0.44▼0.43 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.44▲0.49 | 97th |
| 45th | +0.01▲0.21 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.01▲0.23 | 55th |
| 0th | −0.81▼0.91 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.81▲0.62 | 100th |
| 15th | 2▼1.5 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.6 | 85th |
| Miamioffense | defenseCentral Michigan | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 97th | 65.0%▲16.0 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 65.0%▼18.8 | 3rd |
| 99th | +0.65▲0.44 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.65▼0.62 | 1st |
| 94th | +0.69▲0.33 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.69▼0.85 | 6th |
| 97th | +0.59▲0.55 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.59▼0.39 | 3rd |
| 79th | 0▲0.4 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.0 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Central MichiganCMU | MiamiMIA | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2527th | Own 3586th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.3 pts82nd | +0.5 pts62nd |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 242nd | 4017th |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −37.81st | +37.899th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 127th | 594th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | 0.0 pts50th | +0.9 pts91st |
| Return touchdownsReturn TDsDefensive and special-teams touchdowns. | 192nd | 192nd |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. MIA +12.4: turnovers +5.2, field position +3.5, kicking −0.6, 4th downs +1.1, penalty first downs +3.1. | −12.45th | +12.495th |
Season so far
Central Michigan3–5 · 83rd-hardest schedule
L
at New Mexico7–38missed +11
at New Mexico7–38missed +11Wvs Colgate13–10missed −18.5
W
vs Wyoming24–10covered +1
vs Wyoming24–10covered +1Lat Miami3–52missed +41
at Miami3–52missed +41W
vs Akron41–17covered −7
vs Akron41–17covered −7L
at Ohio14–31missed +2.5
at Ohio14–31missed +2.5L
vs Western Michigan14–21covered +7.5
vs Western Michigan14–21covered +7.5L
vs Miami (OH)27–28covered +3.5
vs Miami (OH)27–28covered +3.5Miami7–0 · 62nd-hardest schedule
W
at Stanford45–6covered −24.5
at Stanford45–6covered −24.5Wvs Florida A&M77–7covered −59.5
W
at Wake Forest33–20missed −20
at Wake Forest33–20missed −20Wvs Central Michigan52–3covered −41
vs Central Michigan52–3covered −41W
at Clemson41–13covered −14
at Clemson41–13covered −14W
vs Florida State43–35missed −19.5
vs Florida State43–35missed −19.5W
vs Pittsburgh52–23covered −20.5
vs Pittsburgh52–23covered −20.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.6 · run Sep 26, 6:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is