Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1153rd
  Defense+0.1336th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%76th
  Defense43.5%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1739th
  Defense+1.1664th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2370th
  Defense+0.2032nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%75th
  Defense46.0%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%80th
  Defense38.4%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.393rd
  Defense2.7071st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%8th
  Defense22.7%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%30th
  Defense15.8%47th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   EKU
2. L
   ILL
3. L
   LT
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   UTEP
6. W
   CLT
7. W
   ODU
8. L
   FAU
9. L
   VAN
10. L
    MRSH
11. W
    MTSU
12. L
    FIU
13. L
    GAST

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

Players, 2017

1. Mike WhiteQB524 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 5th of 226 QBs
   2.54WAR1.55 to 3.50
2. D'Andre FerbyRB98 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 155th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.27
3. Jakairi MosesRB84 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 196th of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
4. Nacarius FantWR83 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 116th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
5. Cameron Echols-LuperWR55 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 169th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Lucky JacksonWR46 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 170th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Quinton BakerRB67 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 243rd of 352 RBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.17
8. Quin JernighanWR42 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 184th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  332332107th of 130Roster talent: 332, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12512589th of 130Recruiting: 125, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%98th of 128Returning production: 42%, 98th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.9−4.988th of 128SP+ rating: −4.9, 88th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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. vs MTSUQ4 1:32 4th & 5 at MTSU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at FIUQ3 1:52 4th & 12 at midfield, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
3. at VANQ4 9:58 4th & 13 at VAN 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. vs FAUQ4 2:23 4th & 3 at FAU 23, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. at UTEPQ4 13:13 4th & 11 at UTEP 36, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs LTQ4 4:28 4th & 2 at WKU 33, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at GASTQ3 7:41 4th & 2 at WKU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs BALLQ4 14:52 4th & 3 at BALL 17, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

115th of 130 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.

1. W

   EKU
2. L

   ILL
3. L

   LT
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   UTEP
6. W

   CLT
7. W

   ODU
8. L

   FAU
9. L

   VAN
10. L

    MRSH
11. W

    MTSU
12. L

    FIU
13. L

    GAST

What moved it, 2017

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−1.25
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.28
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• EKUW 31-17 vs EKU99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +5
• ILLL 7-20 at ILL64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• LTL 22-23 vs LT66% → 9%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −53, Possession & field position +2
• BALLW 33-21 vs BALL77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• UTEPW 15-14 at UTEP87% → 82%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +22, Clock +3
• CLTW 45-14 vs CLT87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +15
• ODUW 35-31 at ODU68% → 81%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• FAUL 28-42 vs FAU28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• VANL 17-31 at VAN16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21
• MRSHL 23-30 at MRSH23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −1
• MTSUW 41-38 vs MTSU45% → 79%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −25
• FIUL 17-41 at FIU54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −47
• GASTL 17-27 at GAST35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2

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.