Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2584th
  Defense+0.1733rd
• 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.
  Offense49.9%93rd
  Defense38.8%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1922nd
  Defense+1.445th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2384th
  Defense+0.1627th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3274th
  Defense+0.2055th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.9%93rd
  Defense45.6%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%85th
  Defense26.1%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5496th
  Defense2.7285th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.6%96th
  Defense23.0%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%91st
  Defense21.8%99th

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, 2021

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
   MICH
2. W
   ILST
3. W
   PITT
4. W
   SJSU
5. W
   BUF
6. L
   BALL
7. W
   KENT
8. L
   TOL
9. L
   CMU
10. W
    AKR
11. L
    EMU
12. W
    NIU
13. W
    NEV

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

Players, 2021

1. Kaleb ElebyQB352 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 33rd of 219 QBs
   1.98WAR1.36 to 2.62
2. Sean TylerRB152 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 40th of 387 RBs
   0.61WAR0.45 to 0.78
3. La'Darius JeffersonRB155 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 51st of 387 RBs
   0.56WAR0.41 to 0.71
4. Skyy MooreWR92 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 10th of 474 WRs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.48
5. Jaxson KincaideRB56 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 206th of 387 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
6. Jaylen HallWR41 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 100th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
7. Corey Crooms Jr.WR37 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 122nd of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
8. Mareyohn HrabowskiTE11 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 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 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  396396106th of 130Roster talent: 396, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115180th of 130Recruiting: 151, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%53rd of 128Returning production: 82%, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.676th of 130SP+ rating: +0.6, 76th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.10 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 BUFQ3 2:15 4th & 13 at BUF 36, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
2. at PITTQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at WMU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs BALLQ3 6:44 4th & 4 at BALL 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at NEVQ4 14:50 4th & 1 at WMU 39, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs BALLQ2 4:31 4th & 3 at BALL 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NEVQ2 14:15 4th & 2 at NEV 5, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs SJSUQ1 6:02 4th & 16 at SJSU 32, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at NIUQ2 11:51 4th & 12 at NIU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

56th 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

   MICH
2. W

   ILST
3. W

   PITT
4. W

   SJSU
5. W

   BUF
6. L

   BALL
7. W

   KENT
8. L

   TOL
9. L

   CMU
10. W

    AKR
11. L

    EMU
12. W

    NIU
13. W

    NEV

What moved it, 2021

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+0.77
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• MICHL 14-47 at MICH13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• ILSTW 28-0 vs ILST80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• PITTW 44-41 at PITT14% → 94%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• SJSUW 23-3 vs SJSU59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• BUFW 24-17 at BUF71% → 98%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• BALLL 20-45 vs BALL81% → 0%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −69, Timeouts −1
• KENTW 64-31 vs KENT69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• TOLL 15-34 at TOL55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, Possession & field position −1
• CMUL 30-42 vs CMU74% → 2%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• AKRW 45-40 vs AKR95% → 88%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +1
• EMUL 21-22 at EMU66% → 14%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −3
• NIUW 42-21 at NIU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• NEVW 52-24 at NEV31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +64, Clock +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.