CFB 360 is currently a work in progress! Learn more about our unbiased ranking engine & upcoming Player Recruiting Hub

Composite projection engine

Matchup Simulator

Away team (Team A)
WYO logo
Home team (Team B)
CMU logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT

Color clash detected โ€” Wyoming is shown in their alternate road accent for contrast.

WYO logoWyoming
1-1 ยท 48.2 PWR
57%

WYO win probability

Projected line: WYO -1.4

CMU logoCentral Michigan
1-1 ยท 46.0 PWR

Positional unit index โ€” 0 to 100 scale

50 = FBS average ยท 72+ = Top 25 level ยท 90+ = elite national top five. Week 3 weighting: 60% preseason roster talent + 40% live 2026 game EPA.

36QB vs QB27

+3.8 WYO advantage โ€” 9-point index gap over Central Michigan (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). WYO Below average.

35WR Room vs WR Room28

+2.9 WYO advantage โ€” 7-point index gap over Central Michigan (explosive pass rate and yards per target). WYO Below average.

39RB Room vs RB Room39

Even matchup โ€” both units index the same

41Run Blocking vs Run Defense31

+4.2 WYO advantage โ€” 10-point index gap over Central Michigan (line yards against stuff rate). WYO Below average.

37Offensive Line vs Pass Rush38

-0.4 CMU advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over Wyoming (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). CMU Below average.

35Pass Game vs Coverage40

-2.1 CMU advantage โ€” 5-point index gap over Wyoming (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). CMU Below average.

34Pass Rush vs Offensive Line31

+1.3 WYO advantage โ€” 3-point index gap over Central Michigan (pressure differential in the trenches). WYO Below average.

36Coverage vs Pass Game28

+3.4 WYO advantage โ€” 8-point index gap over Central Michigan (coverage grade against target efficiency). WYO Below average.

Projections use opponent-adjusted efficiency, SOS, and unit-level grades derived from live 2026 team data.