Central Michigan
3–5 · Ours #130Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
22–26Our projected score
Buffalo
5–3 · Ours #117Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceHow often each team wins the game outright when we play it out thousands of times from our line.BUF 60%
BUF 60%SpreadThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur 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. BUF −3.8
TotalThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's projected combined score for both teams, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. 47.8
Our call · No priceNeither DraftKings nor FanDuel is offering our side at our number right now, so there is no price to judge.—
The matchupeach offense against the defense it faces · FBS rank in the colored cell
| Buffalooffense | Defense edge · 4 of 5 | defenseCentral Michigan | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120th | −0.04 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.08. | +0.06 | 79th |
| 135th | 35.7% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.3%. | 46.2% | 125th |
| 127th | −0.13 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.09. | −0.12 | 18th |
| 88th | +0.04 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.21 | 129th |
| 134th | 9.0% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.7%. | 11.9% | 77th |
| Central Michiganoffense | Defense edge · 4 of 5 | defenseBuffalo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112th | −0.01 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.08. | +0.05 | 76th |
| 110th | 39.7% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.3%. | 39.1% | 41st |
| 138th | −0.23 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.10 | 90th |
| 39th | +0.13 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.01 | 57th |
| 137th | 7.3% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.7%. | 11.3% | 65th |
Team stats
| BuffaloBUF | Central MichiganCMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Special teamsSpecial teams expected points added per game. | +3.56th | −0.799th |
| Field positionAverage starting field position against the opponent's, in yards. | +1.554th | −2.1105th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| Scoring chancesShare of drives that reach the opponent's 40. | 42%121st | 40%128th |
| Points per chancePoints scored per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.6894th | 3.55102nd |
| Time of possession | 27:12107th | 27:42101st |
| Plays per game | 738th | 59129th |
| Turnovers & havoc | ||
| Turnover margin | −5 | +2 |
| Giveaways – takeaways | 15 – 10 | 12 – 14 |
| Havoc rateShare of defensive plays with a sack, tackle for loss, interception or forced fumble. | 12.6%100th | 11.9%121st |
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 +1L
at 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 +3.5Buffalo5–3 · 105th-hardest schedule
Wvs UAlbany21–17missed −18.5
L
at Florida International20–33missed +10
at Florida International20–33missed +10L
at Penn State13–55missed +40
at Penn State13–55missed +40Wvs Robert Morris31–28missed −28
Lvs Western Michigan17–20covered +12.5
vs Western Michigan17–20covered +12.5W
at Toledo23–8covered +18.5
at Toledo23–8covered +18.5W
vs Massachusetts25–18push −7
vs Massachusetts25–18push −7W
vs Bowling Green31–24covered −3
vs Bowling Green31–24covered −3Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 27, 7:26 AM EDT · freezes at kickoff and grades as-is