Western Michigan

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0836th
  Defense−0.0390th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%60th
  Defense36.9%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.031st
  Defense+1.2548th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1263rd
  Defense−0.0178th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0512th
  Defense0.0093rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%84th
  Defense41.5%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.0%6th
  Defense28.2%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1782nd
  Defense2.7765th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%79th
  Defense17.3%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%87th
  Defense17.3%76th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   UNT
3. L
   ILL
4. W
   TOL
5. W
   URI
6. W
   MASS
7. W
   BALL
8. L
   M-OH
9. W
   CMU
10. W
    OHIO
11. W
    NIU
12. W
    EMU
13. W
    M-OH
14. W
    KENN

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

Players, 2025

1. Broc LowryQB340 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 54th of 231 QBs
   1.34WAR0.75 to 1.94
2. Jalen BuckleyRB163 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 22nd of 365 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.50
3. Devin MilesRB54 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 240th of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
4. Talique WilliamsWR58 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.17
5. Blake BosmaTE23 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 53rd of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Ryan MillmoreP43 plays · +0.022 pts/play · 67th of 100 punters
   0.02WAR−0.05 to 0.08
7. Christian LearyWR10 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 410th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  534534105th of 134Roster talent: 534, 105th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014094th of 134Recruiting: 140, 94th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%70th of 132Returning production: 32%, 70th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.477th of 134SP+ rating: −1.4, 77th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.21 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 7:07 4th & 4 at M-OH 38, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.9 pts
2. vs CMUQ4 2:08 4th & 5 at CMU 7, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.9 pts
3. vs OHIOQ4 0:16 4th & 12 at OHIO 12, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
4. vs OHIOQ4 2:45 4th & 4 at OHIO 19, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs UNTQ4 14:13 4th & 4 at UNT 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs UNTQ2 5:11 4th & 3 at WMU 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at MASSQ3 10:23 4th & 4 at WMU 49, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs M-OHQ4 14:54 4th & 3 at M-OH 44, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

6th of 136 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. L

   UNT
3. L

   ILL
4. W

   TOL
5. W

   URI
6. W

   MASS
7. W

   BALL
8. L

   M-OH
9. W

   CMU
10. W

    OHIO
11. W

    NIU
12. W

    EMU
13. W

    M-OH
14. W

    KENN

What moved it, 2025

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+2.93
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.18
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• MSUL 6-23 at MSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts +3
• UNTL 30-33 vs UNT20% → 79%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −25
• ILLL 0-38 at ILL4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TOLW 14-13 vs TOL15% → 95%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• URIW 47-14 vs URI75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• MASSW 21-3 at MASS83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• BALLW 42-0 vs BALL78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• M-OHL 17-26 at M-OH45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• CMUW 24-21 vs CMU67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• OHIOW 17-13 vs OHIO51% → 87%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +3
• NIUW 35-19 at NIU67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +38, Clock +4
• EMUW 31-21 at EMU74% → 98%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• M-OHW 23-13 vs M-OH58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• KENNW 41-6 vs KENN64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1

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.