Try the model

Western Kentucky

Hilltoppers · Conference USA · FBS
9-42019 · 6-2 in conference
SP+
+1.7 (#58)
FPI
−2.6 (#74)
SRS
0.0 (#60)
Resume
#52

Next game

DEL
vs Delaware
Tue, Oct 27 · 7:00 PM EDT
Projected score
WKU27
DEL27
Win chance
57%
WKU 57%DEL 43%
Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2019
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.08, 35th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 44.3%, 57th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.14, 23rd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.03, 37th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.14, 35th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 48.5%, 57th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 34.9%, 57th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.62, 15th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 21.2%, 30th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 19.3%, 52nd percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.01, 84th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 37.8%, 86th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.23, 42nd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.02, 76th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.04, 84th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 41.3%, 92nd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 31.1%, 68th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.73, 68th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 20.0%, 55th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 18.1%, 24th percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2019
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.0882nd of 130
Defense−0.32allowed29th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−0.1394th of 130
Defense−0.11allowed36th of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−0.623.4 pts/trip107th of 130
Defense−0.643.2 pts/trip allowed18th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.2129th of 130
Defense0.92opponents23rd of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2019
The quarterback
Ty Storey: 1.45 WAR (90% interval 0.76 to 2.21)
41st of 228 FBS QBs in WAR · 106th of 171 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Ty StoreyQB436 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 41st of 228 QBs1.45WAR0.76 to 2.21
  2. Gaej WalkerRB223 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 32nd of 349 RBs0.62WAR0.47 to 0.77
  3. Lucky JacksonWR112 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 30th of 439 WRs0.27WAR0.14 to 0.41
  4. Jahcour PearsonWR92 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 69th of 439 WRs0.20WAR0.09 to 0.30
  5. Steven DuncanQB76 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 181st of 228 QBs0.20WAR0.05 to 0.33
  6. Cory MunsonPK22 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
  7. Jacquez SloanWR45 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 161st of 439 WRs0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
  8. Quin JernighanWR45 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 255th of 439 WRs0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
Every player (11)
  1. Joshua SimonTE38 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 57th of 207 TEs0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.10
  2. Kyle FourtenbaryTE10 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02
  3. Josh SamuelRB1 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 320th of 349 RBs0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.65WAR
38th of 130
Running backs
0.62WAR
91st of 130
Receivers
0.68WAR
15th of 130
Tight ends
0.05WAR
58th of 130
Kicker
0.14WAR
37th of 130
Punter
0.00WAR
97th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
−0.53/game
88th of 130
Front seven
−0.21/game
75th of 130
Secondary
+2.71/game
4th of 130

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

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2019
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 487, 82nd of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 143, 83rd of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 76%, 27th of 130 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +1.7, 58th of 130 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
+5.5points per game

Western Kentucky's SP+ of +1.7 is 5.5 points above the −3.8 its roster talent predicts, 31st of 130 in FBS.

Offense−2.5
Defense+8.6

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 985, SP+ +32.4 (+4.5 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 974, SP+ +35.4 (+8.5 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 960, SP+ +26.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)USC: talent 916, SP+ +13.1 (−9.0 vs. talent)LSU: talent 906, SP+ +33.1 (+11.7 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 878, SP+ +1.8 (−17.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 878, SP+ +12.0 (−7.2 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 870, SP+ +22.9 (+4.4 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 863, SP+ +28.1 (+10.1 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 857, SP+ +24.3 (+6.7 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 853, SP+ +20.7 (+3.4 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 849, SP+ +15.0 (−2.0 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 844, SP+ +21.0 (+4.4 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 843, SP+ +17.7 (+1.1 vs. talent)Florida: talent 836, SP+ +24.0 (+8.0 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 830, SP+ +10.8 (−4.8 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 818, SP+ +19.0 (+4.3 vs. talent)Miami: talent 815, SP+ +9.6 (−4.9 vs. talent)Washington: talent 801, SP+ +18.3 (+4.7 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 788, SP+ −4.7 (−17.3 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 763, SP+ +4.8 (−6.1 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 741, SP+ −3.9 (−13.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 733, SP+ +3.5 (−5.5 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 729, SP+ +2.6 (−6.2 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 718, SP+ +2.9 (−5.2 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 708, SP+ −10.6 (−18.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 704, SP+ −6.3 (−13.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 698, SP+ +10.3 (+3.5 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 696, SP+ +8.0 (+1.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 692, SP+ +6.7 (+0.2 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 689, SP+ +7.2 (+0.9 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 686, SP+ +6.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 676, SP+ +20.3 (+14.8 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 673, SP+ +9.1 (+3.7 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 669, SP+ +17.8 (+12.7 vs. talent)NC State: talent 669, SP+ −6.3 (−11.4 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 662, SP+ +0.6 (−4.1 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 646, SP+ +0.2 (−3.6 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 644, SP+ +8.7 (+4.9 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 643, SP+ +7.8 (+4.1 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 639, SP+ −7.0 (−10.5 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 638, SP+ +4.1 (+0.7 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 638, SP+ +16.7 (+13.3 vs. talent)Duke: talent 633, SP+ −1.8 (−4.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 629, SP+ −12.0 (−14.9 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 621, SP+ +19.4 (+16.9 vs. talent)Utah: talent 620, SP+ +19.5 (+17.0 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 614, SP+ −4.1 (−6.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 613, SP+ −5.5 (−7.5 vs. talent)California: talent 612, SP+ −2.6 (−4.6 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 607, SP+ −0.7 (−2.5 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 605, SP+ −10.4 (−12.1 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 604, SP+ +12.8 (+11.2 vs. talent)UCF: talent 599, SP+ +19.1 (+17.8 vs. talent)Houston: talent 598, SP+ −4.3 (−5.6 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 597, SP+ +12.6 (+11.4 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 596, SP+ −0.7 (−1.9 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 587, SP+ −14.6 (−15.3 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 580, SP+ +6.3 (+5.9 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 577, SP+ +2.7 (+2.5 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 577, SP+ +9.1 (+8.9 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 575, SP+ −3.0 (−3.1 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 570, SP+ −8.0 (−7.9 vs. talent)SMU: talent 565, SP+ +4.4 (+4.7 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 565, SP+ −5.7 (−5.4 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 563, SP+ +2.0 (+2.4 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 561, SP+ +8.1 (+8.6 vs. talent)BYU: talent 561, SP+ +1.3 (+1.8 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 560, SP+ −9.8 (−9.2 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 556, SP+ +11.1 (+11.9 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 552, SP+ +18.0 (+19.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 543, SP+ +6.0 (+7.4 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 533, SP+ −7.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 529, SP+ −9.8 (−7.8 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 524, SP+ −0.6 (+1.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 519, SP+ −3.9 (−1.4 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 504, SP+ +2.0 (+5.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 501, SP+ +0.2 (+3.4 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 490, SP+ −1.9 (+1.8 vs. talent)Temple: talent 489, SP+ +3.2 (+6.9 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 487, SP+ +7.5 (+11.3 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 483, SP+ −4.0 (0.0 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 471, SP+ −23.7 (−19.3 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 468, SP+ −14.0 (−9.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 463, SP+ −17.4 (−12.6 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 462, SP+ −12.3 (−7.5 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 457, SP+ −6.1 (−1.1 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 456, SP+ −4.8 (+0.2 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 452, SP+ −4.9 (+0.3 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 451, SP+ −13.7 (−8.5 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 451, SP+ −11.3 (−6.1 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 448, SP+ −2.9 (+2.4 vs. talent)UAB: talent 442, SP+ −1.4 (+4.2 vs. talent)San José State: talent 433, SP+ −7.2 (−1.3 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 425, SP+ −2.5 (+3.7 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 424, SP+ −4.3 (+1.9 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 421, SP+ −1.9 (+4.4 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 417, SP+ −4.4 (+2.1 vs. talent)UConn: talent 413, SP+ −24.4 (−17.8 vs. talent)App State: talent 412, SP+ +11.3 (+17.9 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 412, SP+ −4.5 (+2.1 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 406, SP+ +9.6 (+16.4 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 402, SP+ −17.0 (−10.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 398, SP+ −13.9 (−6.8 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 398, SP+ −1.1 (+6.0 vs. talent)Rice: talent 397, SP+ −18.0 (−10.9 vs. talent)Troy: talent 389, SP+ −4.4 (+3.0 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 386, SP+ −6.3 (+1.2 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 381, SP+ −20.3 (−12.7 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 375, SP+ −24.4 (−16.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 369, SP+ −10.5 (−2.5 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 359, SP+ −9.2 (−0.9 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 359, SP+ −34.6 (−26.3 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 355, SP+ −25.6 (−17.2 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 348, SP+ −16.2 (−7.6 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 346, SP+ −10.7 (−2.0 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 337, SP+ +3.7 (+12.6 vs. talent)Navy: talent 335, SP+ +9.9 (+18.8 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 328, SP+ −4.5 (+4.6 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 317, SP+ −8.6 (+0.8 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 315, SP+ −27.5 (−18.0 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 313, SP+ −10.2 (−0.7 vs. talent)Akron: talent 313, SP+ −29.8 (−20.3 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 306, SP+ −12.8 (−3.1 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 285, SP+ −2.0 (+8.2 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 270, SP+ −22.0 (−11.5 vs. talent)Army: talent 265, SP+ −2.1 (+8.5 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 153, SP+ −2.6 (+9.7 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 152, SP+ +12.1 (+24.4 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 487, SP+ +1.7, expected −3.8Western Kentucky
One dot per FBS team, 2019. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Western Kentucky's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2019
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

67 of 9670%105th of 130
FBS median 75%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

1.9 ptsper game121st of 130
0.25 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

8 of 1650%
FBS teams went 64%

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.25 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 FIUQ3 8:39 4th & 1 at FIU 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
  2. at USMQ3 2:56 4th & 1 at WKU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
  3. at WMUQ2 2:22 4th & 1 at WMU 7, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
  4. at USMQ3 6:40 4th & 2 at USM 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
  5. at ODUQ3 10:07 4th & 2 at ODU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
  6. vs ARMYQ3 7:27 4th & 3 at ARMY 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
  7. vs FAUQ2 5:11 4th & 1 at WKU 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
  8. vs UABQ3 2:59 4th & 2 at WKU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
Every call this season (96)
Wk 1 · vs CARK · L 28-356 of 6 agreed
  1. Q3 14:524th & 5 at WKU 17, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q3 7:134th & 2 at CARK 36, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q4 10:104th & 9 at CARK 15, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q4 9:534th & 8 at WKU 24, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 6:434th & 3 at CARK 46, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 0:514th & 5 at CARK 33, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 2 · at FIU · W 20-144 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 4 at WKU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 3:224th & 3 at WKU 43, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 14:304th & 3 at WKU 47, tied · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 10:204th & 2 at WKU 38, tied · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 1:454th & 15 at WKU 26, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 8:394th & 1 at FIU 1, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−3.7 pts
  7. Q3 4:144th & 21 at WKU 35, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 12:264th & 11 at FIU 26, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 3 · vs LOU · L 21-387 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 4 at WKU 43, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 10:354th & 18 at WKU 38, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 4:184th & 11 at WKU 39, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 8:014th & 6 at WKU 23, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 14:104th & 1 at LOU 27, down 24 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q3 8:544th & 9 at WKU 47, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 12:484th & 15 at LOU 43, down 17 · Went for itClose call
  8. Q4 8:154th & 3 at LOU 8, down 17 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 3:214th & 10 at WKU 39, down 17 · Went for itClose call
Wk 5 · vs UAB · W 20-133 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 11:164th & 16 at WKU 29, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 2:054th & 9 at UAB 9, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q3 9:174th & 4 at WKU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 2:594th & 2 at WKU 42, tied · Punted−1.2 pts
  5. Q4 8:084th & 17 at UAB 37, up 7 · PuntedClose call
Wk 6 · at ODU · W 20-34 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 3 at ODU 44, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 9:424th & 9 at ODU 13, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 0:144th & 23 at ODU 33, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 10:074th & 2 at ODU 2, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−2.1 pts
  5. Q3 5:314th & 9 at WKU 35, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 6:074th & 1 at ODU 25, up 17 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 3:174th & 4 at ODU 18, up 17 · Kicked a field goalClose call
Wk 7 · vs ARMY · W 17-85 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 13:004th & 6 at WKU 22, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 13:184th & 6 at ARMY 27, up 7 · Went for itClose call
  3. Q2 1:154th & 3 at ARMY 42, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 0:064th & 17 at ARMY 28, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 7:274th & 3 at ARMY 3, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−1.7 pts
  6. Q3 5:344th & 11 at WKU 25, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 1:224th & 1 at ARMY 47, up 9 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 8 · vs CLT · W 30-146 of 8 agreed
  1. Q2 4:084th & 5 at CLT 27, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 0:174th & 6 at CLT 23, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q3 14:554th & 11 at WKU 21, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 10:454th & 10 at CLT 14, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 5:414th & 12 at CLT 30, up 6 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 4:034th & 2 at CLT 21, up 9 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 6:564th & 6 at CLT 30, up 16 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  8. Q4 4:094th & 10 at CLT 39, up 16 · PuntedClose call
Wk 9 · at MRSH · L 23-262 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 4:074th & 7 at MRSH 14, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 13:304th & 15 at MRSH 35, down 17 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q3 10:204th & 2 at WKU 28, down 13 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q4 12:104th & 9 at MRSH 9, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 1:344th & 5 at WKU 40, tied · PuntedClose call
Wk 10 · vs FAU · L 24-357 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 6 at WKU 34, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 15:004th & 15 at WKU 25, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 8:314th & 7 at WKU 10, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 5:114th & 1 at WKU 32, tied · Punted−1.3 pts
  5. Q2 0:164th & 1 at WKU 16, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 11:354th & 4 at FAU 30, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 9:514th & 6 at FAU 10, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 2:044th & 3 at WKU 27, down 11 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 11 · at ARK · W 45-196 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 13:154th & 4 at ARK 36, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 13:154th & 3 at ARK 24, tied · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 14:514th & 6 at ARK 32, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 14:514th & 2 at ARK 40, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 0:494th & 1 at ARK 31, up 21 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q3 15:004th & 3 at WKU 28, up 28 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 9:384th & 1 at ARK 1, up 28 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  8. Q4 15:004th & 11 at midfield, up 31 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 12:214th & 1 at WKU 31, up 25 · PuntedClose call
Wk 13 · at USM · W 28-106 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at USM 22, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 4:584th & 5 at USM 20, up 7 · Went for itClose call
  3. Q1 4:314th & 11 at WKU 20, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 15:004th & 10 at WKU 18, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 13:264th & 8 at USM 48, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 6:404th & 2 at USM 42, up 14 · Punted−2.4 pts
  7. Q3 2:564th & 1 at WKU 48, up 14 · Punted−3.1 pts
  8. Q4 11:204th & 3 at WKU 14, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q4 4:364th & 9 at USM 11, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  10. Q4 1:324th & 1 at USM 37, up 18 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 14 · vs MTSU · W 31-266 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 7:294th & 10 at MTSU 44, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:504th & 1 at MTSU 23, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q1 1:134th & 3 at MTSU 3, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 13:564th & 18 at WKU 32, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 4:304th & 6 at MTSU 14, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 2:294th & 6 at MTSU 15, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 12:384th & 6 at WKU 26, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
SERVPRO First Responder Bowl · at WMU · W 23-205 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 3:014th & 4 at WKU 41, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 2:224th & 1 at WMU 7, up 4 · Kicked a field goal−2.8 pts
  3. Q3 12:484th & 11 at WKU 33, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 5:334th & 22 at WKU 48, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 3:074th & 1 at WKU 43, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 14:354th & 8 at WMU 48, down 7 · Went for itClose call
  7. Q4 1:364th & 9 at WMU 13, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

37 of 3995%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.2 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.7 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at MRSHQ4 6:19 Touchdown, down 1 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.2 pts
  2. at WMUQ4 10:40 Touchdown, down 1 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)<0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2019
9-4vs. 6.6 expected+2.4 wins

6th 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. L
  2. W
  3. L
  4. W
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. L
  9. L
  10. W
  11. W
  12. W
  13. W
What moved it, 2019
+0.1 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+1.8 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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+1.73
  • Possession & field position+0.05
  • Timeouts+0.08
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2019

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Western Kentucky's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2019

The largest single-play change in Western Kentucky's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Western Kentucky's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Western Kentucky's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Western Kentucky's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$99.40+0.5% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Western Kentucky's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com