Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0627th
  Defense+0.1627th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%30th
  Defense44.0%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1820th
  Defense+1.2840th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1051st
  Defense+0.1333rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0917th
  Defense+0.3214th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%41st
  Defense50.0%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.7%11th
  Defense30.7%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1151st
  Defense3.448th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%83rd
  Defense14.5%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%73rd
  Defense17.4%65th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SFPA
2. L
   SYR
3. L
   IOWA
4. L
   TOL
5. W
   BALL
6. L
   MSST
7. L
   M-OH
8. L
   OHIO
9. W
   EMU
10. W
    CMU
11. L
    NIU
12. L
    BGSU

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

Players, 2023

1. Hayden WolffQB210 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 115th of 250 QBs
   0.67WAR0.27 to 1.16
2. Jalen BuckleyRB151 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 45th of 383 RBs
   0.38WAR0.25 to 0.49
3. Treyson BourguetQB100 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 151st of 250 QBs
   0.35WAR0.10 to 0.60
4. Zahir Abdus-SalaamRB90 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 161st of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
5. Kenneth WomackWR71 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 170th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.04 to 0.24
6. Blake BosmaTE18 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 65th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Austin HenceTE25 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 73rd of 212 TEs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Anthony SambucciWR20 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 220th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  402402112th of 130Roster talent: 402, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13513596th of 130Recruiting: 135, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%58th of 128Returning production: 57%, 58th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.9−15.9118th of 130SP+ rating: −15.9, 118th 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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 TOLQ3 7:48 4th & 3 at TOL 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at NIUQ2 7:12 4th & 1 at WMU 25, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs SFPAQ2 2:19 4th & 13 at SFPA 31, up 18Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. at NIUQ3 11:24 4th & 10 at NIU 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs M-OHQ4 5:18 4th & 5 at WMU 26, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at TOLQ4 0:13 4th & 14 at TOL 19, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs CMUQ4 1:37 4th & 3 at CMU 9, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NIUQ2 5:23 4th & 4 at WMU 37, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

66th of 133 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

   SFPA
2. L

   SYR
3. L

   IOWA
4. L

   TOL
5. W

   BALL
6. L

   MSST
7. L

   M-OH
8. L

   OHIO
9. W

   EMU
10. W

    CMU
11. L

    NIU
12. L

    BGSU

What moved it, 2023

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−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• SFPAW 35-17 vs SFPA82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• SYRL 7-48 at SYR5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• IOWAL 10-41 at IOWA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TOLL 31-49 at TOL8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• BALLW 42-24 vs BALL59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −1
• MSSTL 28-41 at MSST8% → 2%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• M-OHL 21-34 vs M-OH28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• OHIOL 17-20 at OHIO12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• EMUW 45-21 at EMU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• CMUW 38-28 vs CMU61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• NIUL 0-24 at NIU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −1
• BGSUL 10-34 vs BGSU48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, 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.