Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1460th
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%33rd
  Defense44.0%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3790th
  Defense+1.2264th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0212th
  Defense+0.1717th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2962nd
  Defense+0.2348th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%20th
  Defense49.3%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%49th
  Defense32.5%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1050th
  Defense3.484th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%89th
  Defense13.1%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%48th
  Defense14.3%11th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   USF
2. W
   HCU
3. L
   OSU
4. L
   TROY
5. W
   MTSU
6. W
   LT
7. L
   JXST
8. L
   LIB
9. W
   UTEP
10. L
    NMSU
11. W
    SHSU
12. W
    FIU
13. W
    ODU

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

Players, 2023

1. Austin ReedQB398 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 36th of 250 QBs
   1.72WAR0.92 to 2.67
2. Malachi CorleyWR80 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 10th of 457 WRs
   0.34WAR0.17 to 0.55
3. Caden VeltkampQB60 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 153rd of 250 QBs
   0.33WAR0.18 to 0.49
4. Elijah YoungRB114 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 103rd of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
5. Easton MesserWR32 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 202nd of 457 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. Tom EllardP37 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 53rd of 103 punters
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Markese SteppRB45 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 264th of 383 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. River HelmsTE19 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 82nd of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49149189th of 130Roster talent: 491, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999122nd of 130Recruiting: 99, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%40th of 128Returning production: 64%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.0−2.073rd of 130SP+ rating: −2.0, 73rd 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2023

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 0.05 of the 0.09 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 NMSUQ3 9:39 4th & 1 at WKU 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at LTQ3 1:37 4th & 1 at WKU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at TROYQ2 12:36 4th & 1 at WKU 20, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs LIBQ4 2:13 4th & 13 at LIB 21, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at LTQ4 10:53 4th & 4 at WKU 30, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at UTEPQ2 14:47 4th & 1 at WKU 23, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at JXSTQ2 3:47 4th & 6 at JXST 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs LIBQ3 12:06 4th & 3 at WKU 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

50th of 133 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

   USF
2. W

   HCU
3. L

   OSU
4. L

   TROY
5. W

   MTSU
6. W

   LT
7. L

   JXST
8. L

   LIB
9. W

   UTEP
10. L

    NMSU
11. W

    SHSU
12. W

    FIU
13. W

    ODU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.72
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.13
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• USFW 41-24 vs USF78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25
• HCUW 52-22 vs HCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OSUL 10-63 at OSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• TROYL 24-27 at TROY37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• MTSUW 31-10 vs MTSU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −2
• LTW 35-28 at LT63% → 96%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• JXSTL 17-20 at JXST71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +3
• LIBL 29-42 vs LIB39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• UTEPW 21-13 at UTEP73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• NMSUL 29-38 vs NMSU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• SHSUW 28-23 vs SHSU74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• FIUW 41-28 at FIU73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• ODUW 38-35 at ODU48% → 88%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +19

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.