Central Michigan’s third-down conversion rate with Brock Townsend and without Brock Townsend
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Central Michigan was 2.6 percentage points under with Brock Townsend and 4.3 percentage points over without Brock Townsend over its last 25 games, 19 games against 3. The plain averages are 34.6% and 38.7%, a difference of 4.2%. Both ranked opponents were with Brock Townsend. Both opponents outside the major colleges were with Brock Townsend. All 9 nonconference games were with Brock Townsend.
Brock Townsend, running back: 499 rushing yards, 97 carries and 21 receptions in 20 of those 25 games.
3 games without Brock Townsend is still too small a sample for the statistics to say much, but maybe you can find something if you squint.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A −6.8% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Brock Townsend vs without Brock Townsend is about what you’d expect.
A −4.2% difference in third-down conversion rate with Brock Townsend vs without Brock Townsend is about what you’d expect.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 38.2% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vs Colgate | W | 37.5% | — | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | vs Wyoming | W | 38.5% | 37.2% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | @ Miami (FL) | L | 42.9% | 36.2% | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | vsAkron | W | 33.3% | 37.3% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | @ Ohio | L | 42.9% | 36.4% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | vsWestern Michigan | L | 26.7% | 37.1% | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | vs Miami (OH) | L | 42.9% | 40.4% | |
| Nov 4, 2026 | vsEastern Michigan (neutral) | W | — | — |
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 0.6% in 2024, 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 50% in 2024, 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The two sides are the games before and after one date, so the shuffle moves any game between them.
- Wagner, Colgate, Eastern Michigan 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 for 21 of these 25 games; in the other 4 a player is counted as in them when the box score has a stat for him.