Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1047th
  Defense+0.0470th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%58th
  Defense37.1%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2345th
  Defense+1.3314th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0642nd
  Defense+0.0364th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1546th
  Defense+0.0973rd
• 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%47th
  Defense42.3%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%81st
  Defense26.9%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9955th
  Defense2.7962nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%29th
  Defense21.6%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%57th
  Defense16.1%57th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SHSU
2. W
   UNA
3. L
   TOL
4. W
   NEV
5. W
   MOST
6. W
   DEL
7. L
   FIU
8. W
   LT
9. W
   NMSU
10. W
    MTSU
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    JXST
13. W
    USM

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

Players, 2025

1. Maverick McIvorQB262 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 102nd of 231 QBs
   0.79WAR0.24 to 1.27
2. Rodney Tisdale Jr.QB220 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 129th of 231 QBs
   0.54WAR0.15 to 0.97
3. Matthew HenryWR81 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 11th of 451 WRs
   0.35WAR0.17 to 0.50
4. Marvis ParrishRB130 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 95th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.30
5. La'Vell WrightRB79 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.21
6. George Hart IIIRB64 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 230th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. K.D. HutchinsonWR78 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.03 to 0.21
8. Jairus MackWR27 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  561561100th of 134Roster talent: 561, 100th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  120120116th of 134Recruiting: 120, 116th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%116th of 132Returning production: 13%, 116th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.668th of 134SP+ rating: +1.6, 68th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.09 of the 0.12 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 MOSTQ4 12:21 4th & 1 at MOST 1, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs NMSUQ3 12:52 4th & 1 at WKU 13, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at LTQ4 1:44 4th & 4 at LT 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs FIUQ2 1:42 4th & 1 at WKU 25, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs FIUQ3 12:57 4th & 3 at WKU 49, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs MTSUQ2 8:16 4th & 2 at MTSU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at LSUQ4 2:36 4th & 15 at WKU 37, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at USMQ1 5:28 4th & 1 at WKU 15, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

21st of 136 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

   SHSU
2. W

   UNA
3. L

   TOL
4. W

   NEV
5. W

   MOST
6. W

   DEL
7. L

   FIU
8. W

   LT
9. W

   NMSU
10. W

    MTSU
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    JXST
13. W

    USM

What moved it, 2025

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+1.65
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.36

Game by game

• SHSUW 41-24 vs SHSU73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30
• UNAW 55-6 vs UNA95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• TOLL 21-45 at TOL23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• NEVW 31-16 vs NEV71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• MOSTW 27-22 at MOST63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• DELW 27-24 at DEL47% → 82%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +5
• FIUL 6-25 vs FIU72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −63, Clock −2
• LTW 28-27 at LT34% → 88%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• NMSUW 35-16 vs NMSU69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 42-26 vs MTSU79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 10-13 at LSU4% → 5%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −10
• JXSTL 34-37 at JXST55% → 6%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• USMW 27-16 at USM42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, 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.