Michigan · Week 4 analysis

Where the team stands

Michigan ranks No. 60 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +1.05 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 60; this update moves it +0 places and -0.12 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 4 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 3–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -2.194. Prior-season margin: +14.984.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0019; EPA/play net: -0.0314; success-rate net: +0.0152; explosiveness net: -0.0540. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 4 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Michigan lost to Iowa by 1 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -16.29; the result was +15.29 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Minnesota on 2026-10-03. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 429 versus 285; Net passing yards: 276 versus 227; Rushing yards: 153 versus 58; First downs: 21 versus 16

Completions–attempts: 17-28 versus 21-35; Rush attempts: 40 versus 24; Yards per pass: 9.9 versus 6.5; Yards per rush: 3.8 versus 2.4

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 20 points and recorded 285 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 1; Third downs: 5-13 versus 6-14; Fourth downs: 0-1 versus 0-0

Turnovers: 1 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 8-75 versus 5-34; Possession time: 34:29 versus 25:31

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 3–1. The expected final record is 5.9–6.1 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 59 North Carolina (+1.08); No. 61 UConn (+1.02).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.