Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.045th
  Defense+0.1051st
• 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.
  Offense34.2%2nd
  Defense44.2%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2761st
  Defense+1.1580th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.1039th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1117th
  Defense+0.2050th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.2%5th
  Defense49.9%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.3%8th
  Defense31.0%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8818th
  Defense3.1536th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%51st
  Defense13.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.4%1st
  Defense20.8%94th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MSU
2. W
   BALL
3. L
   PITT
4. L
   SJSU
5. W
   UNH
6. L
   EMU
7. L
   OHIO
8. W
   M-OH
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    NIU
11. W
    CMU
12. W
    TOL

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

Players, 2022

1. Sean TylerRB180 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 47th of 384 RBs
   0.42WAR0.25 to 0.61
2. Treyson BourguetQB113 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 141st of 234 QBs
   0.37WAR0.07 to 0.68
3. Corey Crooms Jr.WR85 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 6th of 455 WRs
   0.34WAR0.17 to 0.52
4. Jack SalopekQB217 plays · +0.045 pts/play · 180th of 234 QBs
   0.18WAR−0.36 to 0.75
5. La'Darius JeffersonRB59 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 214th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Jehlani GallowayWR37 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 222nd of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Nick MihalicP63 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 46th of 102 punters
   0.08WAR−0.03 to 0.19
8. Palmer DomschkePK16 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 56th of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45045096th of 129Roster talent: 450, 96th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014094th of 129Recruiting: 140, 94th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%104th of 128Returning production: 32%, 104th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.3−17.3118th of 129SP+ rating: −17.3, 118th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.10 of the 0.20 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 M-OHQ4 13:36 4th & 4 at M-OH 34, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs TOLQ4 2:28 4th & 4 at TOL 36, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs NIUQ4 9:37 4th & 9 at NIU 29, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs TOLQ4 5:55 4th & 4 at TOL 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at BALLQ2 4:14 4th & 1 at WMU 22, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 3:50 4th & 3 at M-OH 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at M-OHQ4 5:18 4th & 2 at WMU 17, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs OHIOQ4 8:12 4th & 7 at WMU 17, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

58th of 131 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

   MSU
2. W

   BALL
3. L

   PITT
4. L

   SJSU
5. W

   UNH
6. L

   EMU
7. L

   OHIO
8. W

   M-OH
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    NIU
11. W

    CMU
12. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2022

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−1.34
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• MSUL 13-35 at MSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• BALLW 37-30 at BALL67% → 94%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• PITTL 13-34 vs PITT25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SJSUL 6-34 at SJSU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31
• UNHW 44-7 vs UNH84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• EMUL 23-45 vs EMU63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• OHIOL 14-33 vs OHIO59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• M-OHW 16-10 at M-OH28% → 73%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −3
• BGSUL 9-13 at BGSU30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• NIUL 21-24 vs NIU41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• CMUW 12-10 at CMU21% → 20%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position −1
• TOLW 20-14 vs TOL27% → 97%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +4

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.