Western Kentucky
- SP+
- +1.7 (#58)
- FPI
- −2.6 (#74)
- SRS
- 0.0 (#60)
- Resume
- #52
Next game
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
Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.
- EPA per playExpected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
- Success rateShare of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
- ExplosivenessAverage EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
- Rushing EPAEPA per designed run.
- Passing EPAEPA per pass play.
- Standard downsSuccess rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
- Passing downsSuccess rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
- Line yardsRushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
- Stuff rateShare of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
- HavocShare 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
Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.
Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.
Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.
Average expected points where drives started.
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
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
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.
- Ty StoreyQB436 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 41st of 228 QBs1.45WAR0.76 to 2.21
- Gaej WalkerRB223 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 32nd of 349 RBs0.62WAR0.47 to 0.77
- Lucky JacksonWR112 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 30th of 439 WRs0.27WAR0.14 to 0.41
- Jahcour PearsonWR92 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 69th of 439 WRs0.20WAR0.09 to 0.30
- Steven DuncanQB76 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 181st of 228 QBs0.20WAR0.05 to 0.33
- Cory MunsonPK22 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
- Jacquez SloanWR45 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 161st of 439 WRs0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
- Quin JernighanWR45 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 255th of 439 WRs0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
Every player (11)
- Joshua SimonTE38 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 57th of 207 TEs0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.10
- Kyle FourtenbaryTE10 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02
- Josh SamuelRB1 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 320th of 349 RBs0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00
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
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: 487, 82nd of 130 in FBSRoster talent247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
- Recruiting: 143, 83rd of 130 in FBSRecruitingAverage 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
- Returning production: 76%, 27th of 130 in FBSReturning productionShare of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
- SP+ rating: +1.7, 58th of 130 in FBSSP+ ratingThe result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
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
Western Kentucky's SP+ of +1.7 is 5.5 points above the −3.8 its roster talent predicts, 31st of 130 in FBS.
The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.
Conversion by season
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
Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.
Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.
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
- at FIUQ3 8:39 4th & 1 at FIU 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
- at USMQ3 2:56 4th & 1 at WKU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
- at WMUQ2 2:22 4th & 1 at WMU 7, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
- at USMQ3 6:40 4th & 2 at USM 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
- at ODUQ3 10:07 4th & 2 at ODU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
- vs ARMYQ3 7:27 4th & 3 at ARMY 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
- vs FAUQ2 5:11 4th & 1 at WKU 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
- vs UABQ3 2:59 4th & 2 at WKU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
Every call this season (96)
- Q3 14:524th & 5 at WKU 17, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 7:134th & 2 at CARK 36, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 10:104th & 9 at CARK 15, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 9:534th & 8 at WKU 24, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 6:434th & 3 at CARK 46, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 0:514th & 5 at CARK 33, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 15:004th & 4 at WKU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 3:224th & 3 at WKU 43, tied · PuntedClose call
- Q2 14:304th & 3 at WKU 47, tied · PuntedClose call
- Q2 10:204th & 2 at WKU 38, tied · PuntedClose call
- Q2 1:454th & 15 at WKU 26, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 8:394th & 1 at FIU 1, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−3.7 pts
- Q3 4:144th & 21 at WKU 35, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 12:264th & 11 at FIU 26, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q1 15:004th & 4 at WKU 43, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 10:354th & 18 at WKU 38, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 4:184th & 11 at WKU 39, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 8:014th & 6 at WKU 23, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 14:104th & 1 at LOU 27, down 24 · Went for itAgreed
- Q3 8:544th & 9 at WKU 47, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 12:484th & 15 at LOU 43, down 17 · Went for itClose call
- Q4 8:154th & 3 at LOU 8, down 17 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 3:214th & 10 at WKU 39, down 17 · Went for itClose call
- Q1 15:004th & 3 at ODU 44, tied · PuntedClose call
- Q2 9:424th & 9 at ODU 13, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q2 0:144th & 23 at ODU 33, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 10:074th & 2 at ODU 2, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−2.1 pts
- Q3 5:314th & 9 at WKU 35, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 6:074th & 1 at ODU 25, up 17 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 3:174th & 4 at ODU 18, up 17 · Kicked a field goalClose call
- Q1 13:004th & 6 at WKU 22, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 13:184th & 6 at ARMY 27, up 7 · Went for itClose call
- Q2 1:154th & 3 at ARMY 42, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 0:064th & 17 at ARMY 28, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 7:274th & 3 at ARMY 3, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−1.7 pts
- Q3 5:344th & 11 at WKU 25, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 1:224th & 1 at ARMY 47, up 9 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 4:084th & 5 at CLT 27, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q2 0:174th & 6 at CLT 23, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 14:554th & 11 at WKU 21, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 10:454th & 10 at CLT 14, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 5:414th & 12 at CLT 30, up 6 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 4:034th & 2 at CLT 21, up 9 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 6:564th & 6 at CLT 30, up 16 · Kicked a field goalClose call
- Q4 4:094th & 10 at CLT 39, up 16 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 15:004th & 6 at WKU 34, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 15:004th & 15 at WKU 25, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 8:314th & 7 at WKU 10, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 5:114th & 1 at WKU 32, tied · Punted−1.3 pts
- Q2 0:164th & 1 at WKU 16, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 11:354th & 4 at FAU 30, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 9:514th & 6 at FAU 10, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 2:044th & 3 at WKU 27, down 11 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 13:154th & 4 at ARK 36, tied · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 13:154th & 3 at ARK 24, tied · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 14:514th & 6 at ARK 32, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 14:514th & 2 at ARK 40, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q2 0:494th & 1 at ARK 31, up 21 · Went for itAgreed
- Q3 15:004th & 3 at WKU 28, up 28 · PuntedClose call
- Q3 9:384th & 1 at ARK 1, up 28 · Kicked a field goalClose call
- Q4 15:004th & 11 at midfield, up 31 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 12:214th & 1 at WKU 31, up 25 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 15:004th & 1 at USM 22, tied · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 4:584th & 5 at USM 20, up 7 · Went for itClose call
- Q1 4:314th & 11 at WKU 20, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 15:004th & 10 at WKU 18, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 13:264th & 8 at USM 48, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 6:404th & 2 at USM 42, up 14 · Punted−2.4 pts
- Q3 2:564th & 1 at WKU 48, up 14 · Punted−3.1 pts
- Q4 11:204th & 3 at WKU 14, up 14 · PuntedClose call
- Q4 4:364th & 9 at USM 11, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 1:324th & 1 at USM 37, up 18 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 7:294th & 10 at MTSU 44, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 6:504th & 1 at MTSU 23, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 1:134th & 3 at MTSU 3, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
- Q2 13:564th & 18 at WKU 32, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 4:304th & 6 at MTSU 14, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 2:294th & 6 at MTSU 15, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 12:384th & 6 at WKU 26, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 3:014th & 4 at WKU 41, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 2:224th & 1 at WMU 7, up 4 · Kicked a field goal−2.8 pts
- Q3 12:484th & 11 at WKU 33, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 5:334th & 22 at WKU 48, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 3:074th & 1 at WKU 43, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 14:354th & 8 at WMU 48, down 7 · Went for itClose call
- Q4 1:364th & 9 at WMU 13, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.
Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.
Costliest tries against the numbers
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
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.
What moved it, 2019
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
- CARKL 28-35 vs CARK76% → 6%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
- FIUW 20-14 at FIU31% → 85%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +49, Possession & field position −2
- LOUL 21-38 vs LOU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +2
- UABW 20-13 vs UAB44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
- ODUW 20-3 at ODU64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
- ARMYW 17-8 vs ARMY39% → 96%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
- CLTW 30-14 vs CLT76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
- MRSHL 23-26 at MRSH39% → 6%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position +1
- FAUL 24-35 vs FAU50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
- ARKW 45-19 at ARK48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +54, Possession & field position +1
- USMW 28-10 at USM37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
- MTSUW 31-26 vs MTSU78% → 96%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
- WMUW 23-20 at WMU58% → 60%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, 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.
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.
Series & rivalries
Western Kentucky's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.