@CFB_Data

Bill Radjewski (aka BlueSCar) | Software guy who dabbles in analytics | https://xitter.cf/t.co/O5HOuJVFO6

 Cincinnati, OH
CollegeFootballData.com
Joined August 2019
  • Tweets4.8K
  • Following329
  • Followers12.2K
1.6KMedia
Include

Only show posts containing:

Exclude

Hide posts containing:

Time range
-
Minimum likes
Replying to @schwartz_chris
Underwood isn't the problem and it's clear from the data as well as to anyone who has actually watched the games
1
15
230
Replying to @trevormccue
Thank you, Trevor. Huge fan of your work as well!
3
163
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
Data: CFBD play-by-play (through Week 8, no garbage time), opponent-adjusted metrics, CORE, and MGoBlog UFR charting (@mgoblog @Misopogon).
12
1,153
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
What's the Beck call that broke you? For me, there are way too many to list. The goal line calls against Indiana were some of the most egregious I've ever seen in 30+ years of closely following Michigan football. Drop yours below 👇
5
25
1,203
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
You've been yelling it at the TV since September: • Too much Rhino (49% of snaps) • Jordan Marshall, wasted (6.1 → 4.0 yards a carry) • No big plays (#135 of 138) • Andrew Marsh, wasted (12.3 → 6.2 yards a target) The data agrees. Beck still hasn't adjusted.
1
2
23
816
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
The real cost: against the same defenses, other P4 offenses averaged 9 more points per game than Michigan. A merely average P4 offense with this defense is likely 6-1 or 7-0. Not 4-3. Even CORE's conservative math says 1.4 wins already lost.
Dot chart for each Michigan game showing points scored, the average points Power 4 offenses scored against the same opponent, and points allowed. Other P4 offenses averaged 9 more points per game against these defenses. Oklahoma: Michigan 17, P4 par 25.2, allowed 10. Iowa: Michigan 19, P4 par 20.2, allowed 20. Minnesota: Michigan 14, P4 par 28.2, allowed 20. Penn State: Michigan 21, P4 par 29.7, allowed 18. Indiana: Michigan 6, P4 par 18.5, allowed 13.

ALT Dot chart for each Michigan game showing points scored, the average points Power 4 offenses scored against the same opponent, and points allowed. Other P4 offenses averaged 9 more points per game against these defenses. Oklahoma: Michigan 17, P4 par 25.2, allowed 10. Iowa: Michigan 19, P4 par 20.2, allowed 20. Minnesota: Michigan 14, P4 par 28.2, allowed 20. Penn State: Michigan 21, P4 par 29.7, allowed 18. Indiana: Michigan 6, P4 par 18.5, allowed 13.

1
2
21
838
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
This coaching staff is running out of excuses: • Tough schedule? It’s #24 in FBS. Michigan’s adjusted offense still #86 in FBS • Freshman QB? Underwood was better as a true freshman • Lost Haynes? Marshall himself regressed • Proven OC? His QB is just as good without him
1
1
21
814
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
A broken offense got a bye week to fix itself. It came back with more of the same: Run rate: 57% → 57% Rhino share: 49% → 46% Standard-down run rate: 64% → 72% Success rate fell from 42% to 35%.
Small bar charts comparing Michigan before and after the bye. Run rate: 57% before, 57% after. Standard-down run rate: 64% before, 72% after. Rhino share of snaps: 49% before, 46% after. Defenders in the box: 6.8 before, 6.8 after. Success rate: 42% before, 35% after.

ALT Small bar charts comparing Michigan before and after the bye. Run rate: 57% before, 57% after. Standard-down run rate: 64% before, 72% after. Rhino share of snaps: 49% before, 46% after. Defenders in the box: 6.8 before, 6.8 after. Success rate: 42% before, 35% after.

1
1
11
873
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
Beck calls the Rhino (6th OL) his most efficient package. It's on 49% of snaps. Fine: on success rate, it's a wash. But Rhino runs gain 10+ yards 8% of the time vs. 12% for other runs, into an extra box defender. That's where the run game's big plays went.
Small bar charts comparing Michigan snaps with and without the Rhino sixth lineman. Runs gaining 10+ yards: 8% with Rhino, 12% without. All plays gaining 10+ yards: 15% with Rhino, 21% without. Defenders in the box: 7.3 with Rhino, 6.3 without. Success rate: 45% with Rhino, 43% without.

ALT Small bar charts comparing Michigan snaps with and without the Rhino sixth lineman. Runs gaining 10+ yards: 8% with Rhino, 12% without. All plays gaining 10+ yards: 15% with Rhino, 21% without. Defenders in the box: 7.3 with Rhino, 6.3 without. Success rate: 45% with Rhino, 43% without.

1
2
1
14
1,000
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
Michigan gets close. It just doesn't finish: 2.79 points per trip inside the 40, #65 of 68 P4 teams. Down 6-0 to Indiana: 3rd-and-goal at the 1. Naked bootleg. 13-yard sack. Missed 32-yard FG. Zero points.
Bar chart of points per trip inside the opponent 40 for 68 Power 4 teams; Michigan is #65 at 2.79. Below it, the Indiana sequence: a completion to the 1, a 13-yard sack on 3rd-and-goal, and a missed 32-yard field goal.

ALT Bar chart of points per trip inside the opponent 40 for 68 Power 4 teams; Michigan is #65 at 2.79. Below it, the Indiana sequence: a completion to the 1, a 13-yard sack on 3rd-and-goal, and a missed 32-yard field goal.

2
3
17
1,133
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
The run game was supposed to carry this team. It's Michigan's worst since 2013: 48.4% → 39.7% rushing success. It's not the line, which is mid-pack up front: line yards #69, stuff rate #31. The runs die past it: second level #17 → #126, open field #12 → #123.
Two bar charts of Michigan's rushing success rate and EPA per rush for each season from 2003 to 2026. 2026, at 39.7% success and 0.046 EPA per rush, is the lowest on both since 2013; 2025 was 48.4% and 0.193.

ALT Two bar charts of Michigan's rushing success rate and EPA per rush for each season from 2003 to 2026. 2026, at 39.7% success and 0.046 EPA per rush, is the lowest on both since 2013; 2025 was 48.4% and 0.193.

Dumbbell chart of Michigan's FBS rushing ranks, 2025 vs. 2026. At the line: Line yards #9 to #69, Stuff rate (runs for 0 or less) #8 to #31. Past the line: Second-level yards #17 to #126, Open-field yards #12 to #123.

ALT Dumbbell chart of Michigan's FBS rushing ranks, 2025 vs. 2026. At the line: Line yards #9 to #69, Stuff rate (runs for 0 or less) #8 to #31. Past the line: Second-level yards #17 to #126, Open-field yards #12 to #123.

1
2
18
1,104
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
Look closer: both had QB Devon Dampier. This year at Utah, without Beck, he's at 0.35 EPA per play. With Beck last year: 0.32. Beck rode Dampier. Then he asked Underwood to be Dampier: 4.5 → 8.5 runs a start, at 0.06 EPA per run. Now Underwood's on the bench.
Bar chart of Devon Dampier's EPA per play by season: New Mexico '23 0.44 without Beck, New Mexico '24 0.30 with Beck, Utah '25 0.32 with Beck, Utah '26 0.35 without Beck. Below, Bryce Underwood's runs per start rose from 4.5 to 8.5 while his EPA per run fell to 0.06; he was benched at halftime in Week 7.

ALT Bar chart of Devon Dampier's EPA per play by season: New Mexico '23 0.44 without Beck, New Mexico '24 0.30 with Beck, Utah '25 0.32 with Beck, Utah '26 0.35 without Beck. Below, Bryce Underwood's runs per start rose from 4.5 to 8.5 while his EPA per run fell to 0.06; he was benched at halftime in Week 7.

1
1
20
1,191
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
"It's a talent problem." Beck's own résumé says no. In his last two jobs, year one went: New Mexico #51 → #13 Utah #119 → #3 Michigan, with more talent than either: #32 → #86. Same coach. Better players. Worse offense.
Slope chart of adjusted offense and rushing ranks before and during Beck's first season at each stop. Syracuse went from #58 to #103, New Mexico from #51 to #13, Utah from #119 to #3, and Michigan from #32 to #86. In rushing, his New Mexico and Utah offenses ranked #1 and #1; Michigan fell from #8 to #81.

ALT Slope chart of adjusted offense and rushing ranks before and during Beck's first season at each stop. Syracuse went from #58 to #103, New Mexico from #51 to #13, Utah from #119 to #3, and Michigan from #32 to #86. In rushing, his New Mexico and Utah offenses ranked #1 and #1; Michigan fell from #8 to #81.

2
1
21
1,313
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
The big plays are gone. Plays of 20+ yards: #29 in FBS last year, #135 of 138 now. A Freshman All-American WR went from 12.3 to 6.2 yards per target. A 5★ RB is at 3.7 YPC. The exception? JJ Buchanan, Beck's own WR from Utah.
Ranked bar chart of the share of plays gaining 20 or more yards for all 138 FBS teams in 2026. Michigan is #135 at 4.4%, down from 8.3% (#29) in 2025. Passes of 20+ yards fell from #31 to #117, runs of 12+ yards from #56 to #123. Andrew Marsh fell from 12.3 to 6.2 yards per target; JJ Buchanan rose from 7.9 at Utah to 9.8.

ALT Ranked bar chart of the share of plays gaining 20 or more yards for all 138 FBS teams in 2026. Michigan is #135 at 4.4%, down from 8.3% (#29) in 2025. Passes of 20+ yards fell from #31 to #117, runs of 12+ yards from #56 to #123. Andrew Marsh fell from 12.3 to 6.2 yards per target; JJ Buchanan rose from 7.9 at Utah to 9.8.

1
2
19
1,450
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
The guys who came back mostly got worse: 4 of 5 returning roles fell in EPA per play. Jordan Marshall: 6.1 → 4.0 yards per carry. Bryce Underwood: +0.19 → +0.08 EPA per dropback, then benched. Developing players is the job. This is the opposite.
Dumbbell chart comparing 2025 and 2026 EPA per play for returning Michigan players. Jordan Marshall · EPA/rush: +0.25 to +0.15. Bryson Kuzdzal · EPA/rush: +0.06 to +0.18. Bryce Underwood · EPA/dropback: +0.19 to +0.08. Bryce Underwood · EPA/rush: +0.34 to +0.06. Andrew Marsh · EPA/target: +0.76 to +0.24.

ALT Dumbbell chart comparing 2025 and 2026 EPA per play for returning Michigan players. Jordan Marshall · EPA/rush: +0.25 to +0.15. Bryson Kuzdzal · EPA/rush: +0.06 to +0.18. Bryce Underwood · EPA/dropback: +0.19 to +0.08. Bryce Underwood · EPA/rush: +0.34 to +0.06. Andrew Marsh · EPA/target: +0.76 to +0.24.

1
2
22
1,692
Replying to @CFB_Data @Rutgers @Ohio
First, what changed. It's not simply "same players, new coach." Gone: RB Justice Haynes, TE Marlin Klein, WR Donaven McCulley, C Greg Crippen, G Giovanni El-Hadi. Added: RB Savion Hiter, WR JJ Buchanan, QB Tommy Carr.
Table of Michigan's offensive roster changes by position group. Kept: Underwood, Marshall, Kuzdzal, Marsh, Zack Marshall, Hansen, and the offensive line of Andrew Sprague (out since Week 3), Evan Link, Nathan Efobi, Jake Guarnera, Brady Norton, and Blake Frazier, with Avery Gach and Manuel Beigel as Rhino linemen. Lost: Haynes, Klein, McCulley, Crippen, El-Hadi. Added: Carr, Hiter, Buchanan. Returning share of 2025 production: 99% of dropbacks, 65% of rushes, 46% of targets.

ALT Table of Michigan's offensive roster changes by position group. Kept: Underwood, Marshall, Kuzdzal, Marsh, Zack Marshall, Hansen, and the offensive line of Andrew Sprague (out since Week 3), Evan Link, Nathan Efobi, Jake Guarnera, Brady Norton, and Blake Frazier, with Avery Gach and Manuel Beigel as Rhino linemen. Lost: Haynes, Klein, McCulley, Crippen, El-Hadi. Added: Carr, Hiter, Buchanan. Returning share of 2025 production: 99% of dropbacks, 65% of rushes, 46% of targets.

1
17
2,330
Beck needs to go. It can't wait until the offseason. Nobody rebuilds a scheme in October. But a new play-caller can change the packages and the calls this week. Five games left: @Rutgers, MSU, @Oregon, UCLA, @Ohio State. That's five more chances to stop wasting this defense.
1
4
56
2,926
The short version: • Michigan's worst run game since 2013 • Plays of 20+ yards: #135 of 138 in FBS • Beck's last two offenses were #1 in rushing both years. This one: #81 • Other P4 offenses score 9 more points a game vs. the same defenses
1
4
46
3,560
Michigan's defense has held all 7 opponents to 20 points or fewer. Since 2014, FBS teams that do that win 87% of the time. Michigan is 4-3. Jason Beck has to go. Now. Here's the data. 🧵
Scatter plot of all 138 FBS teams by opponent-adjusted offensive and defensive EPA per play in 2026, with Power 4 teams highlighted. Michigan is among the best defenses (#13) but in the bottom half on offense (#86).

ALT Scatter plot of all 138 FBS teams by opponent-adjusted offensive and defensive EPA per play in 2026, with Power 4 teams highlighted. Michigan is among the best defenses (#13) but in the bottom half on offense (#86).

20
136
29
643
51,570
CORE stands for Context & Opponent-Relative Efficiency. It uses play-level EPA, adjusted for game situation and opponent strength, to rate offense and defense. How CORE works: buff.ly/3vJCgXG

Introducing CORE Ratings from CFBD

CORE separates what a play produced from what its situation and opponent help explain. Here is how the new CFBD rating works, how to read it, and where it can improve a college football analysis.

radsportsanalytics.com
1
745
Load more