Western Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0115th
  Defense+0.2019th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%12th
  Defense42.8%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2551st
  Defense+1.481st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0416th
  Defense+0.272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0718th
  Defense+0.1454th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%11th
  Defense45.7%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.9%39th
  Defense35.4%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.569th
  Defense3.2218th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%12th
  Defense15.7%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%39th
  Defense13.7%23rd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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. L
   NEV
2. L
   UGA
3. L
   IU
4. W
   MERC
5. L
   NMSU
6. W
   MOST
7. W
   SHSU

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

Players, 2026

1. Brock GlennQB55 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 106th of 192 QBs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.26
2. Rodney Tisdale Jr.QB90 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 141st of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.05 to 0.21
3. Ajay AllenRB42 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
4. Jonathan Stafford Jr.WR31 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 91st of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
5. Cameron FlowersWR12 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Lofton HowardTE9 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 83rd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Moussa BarryWR10 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Qua'Vez HumphreysWR7 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61261287th of 138Roster talent: 612, 87th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  134134117th of 138Recruiting: 134, 117th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%10th of 136Returning production: 84%, 10th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.0−13.0117th of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.0, 117th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.04 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 MOSTQ3 2:05 4th & 1 at MOST 16, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at NEVQ2 3:28 4th & 6 at NEV 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at UGAQ3 11:20 4th & 1 at WKU 48, down 50Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
4. vs MOSTQ4 11:17 4th & 6 at MOST 25, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
5. at IUQ3 8:14 4th & 4 at WKU 43, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

82nd of 138 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

   NEV
2. L

   UGA
3. L

   IU
4. W

   MERC
5. L

   NMSU
6. W

   MOST
7. W

   SHSU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.06
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13

Game by game

• NEVL 14-49 at NEV56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −1
• UGAL 20-70 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• IUL 0-38 at IU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MERCW 52-7 vs MERC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NMSUL 13-34 at NMSU54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• MOSTW 34-13 vs MOST53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −1
• SHSUW 16-3 at SHSU56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, 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.