Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2080th
  Defense+0.0476th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%61st
  Defense42.1%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3995th
  Defense+1.1092nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1157th
  Defense+0.0561st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3278th
  Defense+0.1471st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%50th
  Defense50.1%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.3%90th
  Defense25.8%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2270th
  Defense3.2918th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.2%80th
  Defense13.9%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%52nd
  Defense15.7%44th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   APSU
2. W
   HAW
3. L
   IU
4. W
   FIU
5. L
   TROY
6. L
   UTSA
7. W
   MTSU
8. W
   UAB
9. L
   UNT
10. W
    CLT
11. W
    RICE
12. L
    AUB
13. W
    FAU
14. W
    USA

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

Players, 2022

1. Austin ReedQB493 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 18th of 234 QBs
   2.17WAR1.23 to 3.21
2. Jaylen HallWR53 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 55th of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.30
3. Kye RobichauxRB61 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 149th of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.26
4. Malachi CorleyWR89 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 65th of 455 WRs
   0.19WAR0.02 to 0.35
5. Daewood DavisWR47 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 71st of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.27
6. Davion Ervin-PoindexterRB64 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 227th of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
7. Michael MathisonWR32 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 206th of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Dalvin SmithWR25 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49649680th of 129Roster talent: 496, 80th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123114th of 129Recruiting: 123, 114th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%108th of 128Returning production: 31%, 108th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.7+1.764th of 129SP+ rating: +1.7, 64th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 14 clear-cut ones account for 0.34 of the 0.40 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 IUQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at IU 26, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.8 pts
2. at IUQ4 11:33 4th & 2 at IU 2, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. vs TROYQ4 7:14 4th & 11 at WKU 24, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.4 pts
4. at IUQ4 3:46 4th & 2 at IU 6, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 3:41 4th & 7 at UTSA 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
6. at FAUQ4 3:56 4th & 9 at FAU 22, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. at IUQ2 5:34 4th & 1 at WKU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
8. at AUBQ4 9:52 4th & 23 at AUB 38, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

57th of 131 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

   APSU
2. W

   HAW
3. L

   IU
4. W

   FIU
5. L

   TROY
6. L

   UTSA
7. W

   MTSU
8. W

   UAB
9. L

   UNT
10. W

    CLT
11. W

    RICE
12. L

    AUB
13. W

    FAU
14. W

    USA

What moved it, 2022

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• APSUW 38-27 vs APSU98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +7
• HAWW 49-17 at HAW86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• IUL 30-33 at IU27% → 27%Before kickoff −23 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +24
• FIUW 73-0 vs FIU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• TROYL 27-34 vs TROY64% → 6%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• UTSAL 28-31 at UTSA26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• MTSUW 35-17 at MTSU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• UABW 20-17 vs UAB46% → 96%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• UNTL 13-40 vs UNT72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −66, Clock −1
• CLTW 59-7 at CLT79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• RICEW 45-10 vs RICE82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22
• AUBL 17-41 at AUB30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• FAUW 32-31 at FAU65% → 41%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −23: Scoreboard +1, Possession & field position +1
• USAW 44-23 at USA39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +57, 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.