Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.3299th
  Defense+0.1141st
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense51.8%99th
  Defense41.5%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2986th
  Defense+1.378th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1376th
  Defense+0.0748th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4799th
  Defense+0.1742nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.1%98th
  Defense46.0%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.2%94th
  Defense33.2%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0776th
  Defense2.8549th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%70th
  Defense21.5%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.2%99th
  Defense2.4%72nd

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2015

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Western Kentucky allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   VAN
2. W
   LT
3. L
   IU
4. W
   M-OH
5. W
   RICE
6. W
   MTSU
7. W
   UNT
8. L
   LSU
9. W
   ODU
10. W
    FAU
11. W
    FIU
12. W
    MRSH
13. W
    USM
14. W
    USF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Western Kentucky.

Players, 2015

1. Brandon DoughtyQB445 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 3rd of 205 QBs
   3.35WAR2.66 to 4.10
2. Taywan TaylorWR97 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 2nd of 411 WRs
   0.46WAR0.29 to 0.63
3. Anthony WalesRB117 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 84th of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.37
4. Nicholas NorrisWR66 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 63rd of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.36
5. D'Andre FerbyRB107 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 157th of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
6. Antwane GrantWR66 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 183rd of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.21
7. Jared DangerfieldWR77 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 248th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.19
8. Leon AllenRB33 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 220th of 333 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Western Kentucky's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  354354106th of 128Roster talent: 354, 106th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11811895th of 128Recruiting: 118, 95th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%20th of 127Returning production: 85%, 20th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.8+10.837th of 128SP+ rating: +10.8, 37th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Western Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.11 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at IUQ3 0:22 4th & 1 at IU 20, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at VANQ3 14:55 4th & 1 at WKU 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at USFQ4 13:09 4th & 2 at WKU 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at USFQ2 9:16 4th & 2 at WKU 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at USFQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at USF 21, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at VANQ2 0:22 4th & 9 at VAN 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UNTQ2 6:48 4th & 2 at UNT 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs LTQ4 1:15 4th & 1 at LT 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

9th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Western Kentucky's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   VAN
2. W

   LT
3. L

   IU
4. W

   M-OH
5. W

   RICE
6. W

   MTSU
7. W

   UNT
8. L

   LSU
9. W

   ODU
10. W

    FAU
11. W

    FIU
12. W

    MRSH
13. W

    USM
14. W

    USF

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Western Kentucky's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+2.53
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• VANW 14-12 at VAN12% → 93%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• LTW 41-38 vs LT59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• IUL 35-38 at IU45% → 8%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• M-OHW 56-14 vs M-OH93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• RICEW 49-10 at RICE64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• MTSUW 58-28 vs MTSU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 55-28 at UNT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• LSUL 20-48 at LSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• ODUW 55-30 at ODU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• FAUW 35-19 vs FAU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• MRSHW 49-28 vs MRSH79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• USMW 45-28 vs USM70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +32
• USFW 45-35 at USF61% → 95%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Western Kentucky's side.

Closest call

WKU 38-35 ODU (2023) - Western Kentucky dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.