Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1770th
  Defense+0.2411th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%75th
  Defense49.0%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2754th
  Defense+1.2166th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1365th
  Defense+0.1332nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2367th
  Defense+0.405th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%76th
  Defense55.1%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%47th
  Defense32.8%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0553rd
  Defense3.1632nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%50th
  Defense15.9%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%75th
  Defense15.9%47th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   WIS
2. L
   OSU
3. W
   BCU
4. L
   MRSH
5. W
   BALL
6. W
   AKR
7. W
   BUF
8. W
   KENT
9. L
   NIU
10. L
    BGSU
11. L
    CMU
12. W
    EMU
13. L
    USA

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

Players, 2024

1. Hayden WolffQB241 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 82nd of 232 QBs
   1.19WAR0.75 to 1.66
2. Jalen BuckleyRB102 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 90th of 373 RBs
   0.30WAR0.22 to 0.37
3. Jaden NixonRB111 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 129th of 373 RBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.33
4. Zahir Abdus-SalaamRB81 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 161st of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
5. Blake BosmaTE31 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 19th of 221 TEs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Anthony SambucciWR29 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 160th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Kenneth WomackWR39 plays · +0.010 pts/play · 370th of 452 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.08 to 0.09

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54754796th of 131Roster talent: 547, 96th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014094th of 131Recruiting: 140, 94th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%16th of 130Returning production: 79%, 16th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.2−10.2103rd of 131SP+ rating: −10.2, 103rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.04 of the 0.11 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 AKRQ4 11:28 4th & 3 at AKR 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs BCUQ4 11:03 4th & 2 at BCU 2, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at CMUQ4 3:38 4th & 7 at WMU 38, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs EMUQ2 7:22 4th & 2 at WMU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs AKRQ4 2:46 4th & 1 at WMU 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at BALLQ4 3:07 4th & 4 at WMU 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs KENTQ2 11:42 4th & 3 at KENT 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at MRSHQ4 12:47 4th & 4 at MRSH 28, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

104th of 134 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

   WIS
2. L

   OSU
3. W

   BCU
4. L

   MRSH
5. W

   BALL
6. W

   AKR
7. W

   BUF
8. W

   KENT
9. L

   NIU
10. L

    BGSU
11. L

    CMU
12. W

    EMU
13. L

    USA

What moved it, 2024

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−1.29
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• WISL 14-28 at WIS7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12
• OSUL 0-56 at OSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• BCUW 59-31 vs BCU98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +7
• MRSHL 20-27 at MRSH46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• BALLW 45-42 at BALL78% → 94%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• AKRW 34-24 vs AKR79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26
• BUFW 48-41 at BUF62% → 18%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −19, Clock −2
• KENTW 52-21 vs KENT90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• NIUL 28-42 vs NIU46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• BGSUL 13-31 at BGSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +1
• CMUL 14-16 at CMU68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• EMUW 26-18 vs EMU73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• USAL 23-30 vs USA37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −43, 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.