Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.3398th
  Defense+0.0769th
• 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.
  Offense52.9%98th
  Defense42.5%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1014th
  Defense+1.2623rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1989th
  Defense+0.0845th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5899th
  Defense+0.0682nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.2%99th
  Defense45.3%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.4%94th
  Defense36.8%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2079th
  Defense3.0734th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%87th
  Defense21.5%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.4%98th
  Defense17.9%72nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 Michigan 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
   NU
2. W
   NCCU
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   GASO
5. W
   CMU
6. W
   NIU
7. W
   AKR
8. W
   EMU
9. W
   BALL
10. W
    KENT
11. W
    BUF
12. W
    TOL
13. W
    OHIO
14. L
    WIS

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

Players, 2016

1. Zach TerrellQB315 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 38th of 218 QBs
   1.70WAR1.21 to 2.18
2. Jamauri BoganRB144 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 23rd of 347 RBs
   0.68WAR0.53 to 0.83
3. Jarvion FranklinRB167 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 77th of 347 RBs
   0.41WAR0.23 to 0.57
4. Corey DavisWR86 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 50th of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.11 to 0.37
5. Carrington ThompsonWR46 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 108th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Butch HamptonPK18 plays · +0.439 pts/play · 26th of 116 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
7. Michael HenryWR55 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 159th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
8. LeVante BellamyRB5 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 283rd of 347 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.01

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 Michigan'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44344381st of 128Roster talent: 443, 81st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15415474th of 128Recruiting: 154, 74th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%35th of 128Returning production: 78%, 35th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.5+11.529th of 128SP+ rating: +11.5, 29th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Michigan'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 0.01 of the 0.07 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 KENTQ4 12:11 4th & 4 at WMU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. at CMUQ2 13:56 4th & 1 at WMU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at ILLQ3 3:19 4th & 4 at ILL 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at WISQ3 2:44 4th & 4 at WIS 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at OHIOQ2 9:37 4th & 3 at OHIO 4, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at WISQ4 3:27 4th & 4 at WIS 11, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at BALLQ2 9:15 4th & 3 at WMU 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs TOLQ2 12:16 4th & 3 at WMU 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

3rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Western Michigan's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   NU
2. W

   NCCU
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   GASO
5. W

   CMU
6. W

   NIU
7. W

   AKR
8. W

   EMU
9. W

   BALL
10. W

    KENT
11. W

    BUF
12. W

    TOL
13. W

    OHIO
14. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Western Michigan'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+3.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.69

Game by game

• NUW 22-21 at NU33% → 90%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +48, Clock +4
• NCCUW 70-21 vs NCCU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• ILLW 34-10 at ILL56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• GASOW 49-31 vs GASO59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• CMUW 49-10 at CMU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44
• NIUW 45-30 vs NIU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• AKRW 41-0 at AKR80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27
• EMUW 45-31 vs EMU94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +11
• BALLW 52-20 at BALL85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• KENTW 37-21 at KENT90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• BUFW 38-0 vs BUF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TOLW 55-35 vs TOL77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27
• OHIOW 29-23 at OHIO89% → 94%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• WISL 16-24 at WIS36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Western Michigan's side.

Closest call

TOL 38-41 WMU (2020) - Western Michigan dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.