Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1152nd
  Defense+0.1335th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%72nd
  Defense40.1%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.066th
  Defense+1.2819th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1172nd
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0936th
  Defense+0.2129th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%73rd
  Defense45.2%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%75th
  Defense30.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0476th
  Defense2.5881st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%86th
  Defense22.0%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%73rd
  Defense19.1%81st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   USC
2. L
   MSU
3. W
   IDHO
4. W
   WAG
5. W
   BALL
6. W
   BUF
7. L
   AKR
8. W
   EMU
9. L
   CMU
10. W
    KENT
11. L
    NIU
12. L
    TOL

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

Players, 2017

1. Jarvion FranklinRB180 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 16th of 352 RBs
   0.61WAR0.44 to 0.77
2. Jon WassinkQB154 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 122nd of 226 QBs
   0.49WAR0.21 to 0.75
3. Jamauri BoganRB76 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 149th of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Derrick MitchellP53 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 7th of 95 punters
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.31
5. Josh GrantPK14 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 61st of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Reece GoddardQB124 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 203rd of 226 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.20 to 0.36
7. D'Wayne EskridgeWR39 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Keishawn WatsonWR45 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 309th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41441483rd of 130Roster talent: 414, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814875th of 130Recruiting: 148, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%123rd of 128Returning production: 22%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.478th of 128SP+ rating: −2.4, 78th of 128 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, 2017

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.23 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 AKRQ3 4:47 4th & 2 at AKR 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at BUFQ2 4:31 4th & 1 at WMU 10, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs IDHOQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at WMU 35, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at NIUQ4 5:21 4th & 6 at WMU 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs CMUQ3 4:09 4th & 3 at CMU 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at BUFQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at WMU 28, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs IDHOQ2 4:00 4th & 2 at WMU 48, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs CMUQ4 13:43 4th & 1 at WMU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

84th of 130 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. L

   USC
2. L

   MSU
3. W

   IDHO
4. W

   WAG
5. W

   BALL
6. W

   BUF
7. L

   AKR
8. W

   EMU
9. L

   CMU
10. W

    KENT
11. L

    NIU
12. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2017

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−0.42
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.36
• Timeouts+0.35
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• USCL 31-49 at USC3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −7
• MSUL 14-28 at MSU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• IDHOW 37-28 vs IDHO85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• WAGW 49-14 vs WAG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BALLW 55-3 vs BALL77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• BUFW 71-68 at BUF68% → 89%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +15
• AKRL 13-14 vs AKR79% → 25%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −32, Clock −5
• EMUW 20-17 at EMU50% → 65%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +21
• CMUL 28-35 vs CMU57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• KENTW 48-20 vs KENT89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• NIUL 31-35 at NIU26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• TOLL 10-37 at TOL18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21

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.