Central Michigan’s third-down conversion rate with Angel Flores and without Angel Flores
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Central Michigan was 0.6 percentage points over with Angel Flores and 3.7 percentage points under without Angel Flores over its last 25 games, 5 games against 14. The plain averages are 36.5% and 33.8%, a difference of 2.6%. All 3 night games were without Angel Flores. All 3 games after a bye were without Angel Flores.
Angel Flores, quarterback: 670 passing yards, 120 pass attempts and 73 completions in 16 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
with Angel Flores
+0.6%
without Angel Flores
−3.7%
-10%0%10%
A +4.4% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Angel Flores vs without Angel Flores is about what you’d expect.
plain
36.5%
33.8%
20%30%40%
A +2.6% difference in third-down conversion rate with Angel Flores vs without Angel Flores is about what you’d expect.
The games
with Angel Floreswithout Angel Flores
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2024 | vs Bowling Green | L | 38.5% | 33.7% | |
| Nov 12, 2024 | @ Toledo | L | 38.5% | 35.5% | |
| Nov 19, 2024 | vs Western Michigan | W | 44.4% | 39.4% | |
| Nov 30, 2024 | @ Northern Illinois | L | 33.3% | 28.6% | |
| Aug 29, 2025 | @ San Jose State | W | 15.4% | 34.5% | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | @ Pittsburgh | L | 35.3% | 28.9% | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | @ Michigan | L | 40.0% | 29.9% | |
| Sep 20, 2025 | vsWWagner | W | 45.5% | — | |
| Sep 27, 2025 | vs Eastern Michigan | W | 30.8% | 43.0% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | @ Akron | L | 33.3% | 35.6% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | @Bowling Green | W | 41.7% | 34.5% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | vs UMass | W | 40.0% | 44.5% | |
| Nov 1, 2025 | @Western Michigan | L | 45.5% | 30.9% | |
| Nov 12, 2025 | vs Buffalo | W | 20.0% | 37.1% | |
| Nov 19, 2025 | @ Kent State | W | 35.7% | 42.8% | |
| Nov 29, 2025 | vsToledo | L | 33.3% | 33.2% | |
| Dec 26, 2025 | vs Northwestern (neutral) | L | 27.3% | 35.0% | |
| Sep 5, 2026 | @ New Mexico | L | 18.2% | 38.1% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vs Colgate | W | 37.5% | — | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | vs Wyoming | W | 38.5% | 37.1% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | @ Miami (FL) | L | 42.9% | 36.1% | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | vsAkron | W | 33.3% | 37.9% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | @ Ohio | L | 42.9% | 36.3% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | vsWestern Michigan | L | 26.7% | 37.0% | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | vs Miami (OH) | L | 42.9% | 40.2% |
Method
- Expected is an offense and a defense a team, fit over every game of its season between two teams in the table with the game being read left out, plus 0.7% in 2025, plus 1.4% in 2026 for the home team (the edge the fit finds once strength is in), nothing at a neutral site.
- Each expected number is then fit to the season’s games: a game bears out about 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The shuffle keeps the season’s shape: the games are cut in two where one date leaves the least variance, each game is read against its stretch, and the sides are shuffled only inside each stretch.
- Wagner, Colgate have no other game in the table, so those games have no expected number and sit out the second figure.
- Who played is read from the schools’ box scores’ participation lists, which name every player who entered the game.
- With him means he was the team’s quarterback that game, at least half of its pass attempts; a game he left early or came into late reads as without him.
- 4 games in 2024 are neither with Angel Flores nor without Angel Flores: Angel Flores had no game for the team that season, and sit out.