Skip to content
Western Michigan

Western Michigan Broncos

Mid-American·1-1·
Elo
1534#57
SP+
-4.2#81
FPI
-0.9
AP
NR
Next@ Rice · Wk 3Win prob 75%Model -10.4
Talent #108 (572.2)Recruiting class #112100% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Western Michigan

All news

Michigan grinds past Western Michigan in a rock fight, 13-12

Matchup · 6d ago

Western Michigan's secondary is back; its pass rush isn't

Matchup · Sep 2

Roster · 104 players

FR 33SO 26JR 21SR 24
#PlayerPosClHtWt
10Trey PettyQBSO6'0"200
12Broc LowryQBJR6'1"210
13Mason ReynoldsQBSO6'1"220
16Jaxson DoshQBFR6'0"200
0AJ Green Jr.RBSR5'10"216
4Cole CabanaRBJR5'11"197
6Jalen BuckleyRBSR5'11"225
21Chase DawkinsRBFR5'9"200
22Donovan TriplettRBFR5'7"190
24Ofa MataeleRBSR6'0"219
27JR HaysRBSO5'9"187
1Emazon LittlejohnWRSO6'0"188
2Aveion ChenaultWRSO6'0"190
3Keivin Boone-Nelson IIWRSR5'10"180
5Kordell GouldsbyWRJR5'9"170
7Baylin BrooksWRJR6'1"207
8Egypt NelsonWRJR6'4"200
11Terence MarshallWRSO6'2"192
17Elijah LucasWRFR6'2"200
19Angelo ChapmanWRFR5'11"160
80Harper HughesWRFR5'11"185
15Adam ParksTEJR6'4"245
35Enese TongaTESO6'4"250
40Nathan SinesTEJR6'6"228
81Michael DersaTEFR6'5"215
83Ryan BrothertonTESO6'4"228
86Ryan RocheleauTEFR6'4"230
87Brady RhoadTEFR6'3"235
88Nate LevickiTESR6'2"245
89Brennan WootenTESR6'4"250
55Jacob BaileyOLFR6'4"309
57Jake ChellmanOLSO6'5"297
58Liam VaughanOLFR6'1"295
60Brandon SmithOLSR6'4"315
61Jacob KrauseOLSO6'6"285
64Nolan MillerOLFR6'3"295
65Jeremy SchleicherOLSO6'3"305
66Munachimdainanma Newman-NwodikaOLFR6'3"260
67Ryan WestrichOLFR6'6"260
68Gavin BeachnerOLFR6'6"324
70KJ KotalikOLFR6'8"328
72Gavin DaboOLSO6'5"305
73Ben RoebuckOLSO6'7"330
75Spencer BeckemanOLFR6'5"305
76Chad SchusterOLSR6'6"305
77Hunter WhitenackOLSR6'6"340
78Jacob WilkOLFR6'6"295
54Alex PoholikCSO6'2"300
2Scoop Gardner Jr.DEJR6'1"255
4Austin AlexanderDESO6'3"255
9Will GerigDESR6'4"250
15KJ BurleyDESO6'3"245
31DeJuan Echoles Jr.DESR6'1"235
40Cody HaworthDEFR6'4"235
43Chris StewartDEFR6'3"230
46Max BakerDEFR6'4"279
88August JohanningsmeierDESR6'4"280
97Noah BishopDESO6'4"245
7Gian CarterDLFR6'3"231
91Angelo PuglianoDLFR6'1"285
93Jayden AswellDLJR6'5"274
95DeShawn RobinsonDLJR6'2"303
96Dalton GustwillerDLJR6'3"305
98Dakari FrazierDLJR6'3"280
41Zavian TibbsDTSR6'1"290
55Blair AlexanderDTSR6'2"270
90Jori BensonDTSR6'3"290
94Ahmed TounkaraDTSO6'0"292
0Brenden AnesLBSO6'2"233
5Justyce BettsLBSO5'11"220
10Teegan HainesLBJR6'3"210
11Jermar McCarterLBJR6'1"210
12Dillon MooreLBSR6'2"223
36Freddy BrownLBFR5'11"215
38Breck MalloryLBFR6'2"210
42Gabe WelchLBJR6'1"225
45Andrew BakerLBSO6'1"225
47Domanick MoonLBSR6'2"235
8Jarvarius SimsCBSR6'0"188
13Jordon ThomasCBSR6'0"181
16Brodon MooreCBFR5'9"165
17Cam'ron BarberCBSO5'10"170
20Willard FerrellCBSR6'1"155
22Amarian LouisCBJR5'8"166
37Carlos Mitchell Jr.CBSO5'9"175
48Tre JohnsonCBFR6'3"160
1Joshua FranklinDBSR6'0"175
6Joey PopeSJR5'11"165
14Daeh McCulloughSJR6'1"180
18Micah DavisSJR6'1"200
19Braden SteelySSO5'11"192
21CJ Miles Jr.SSO6'1"201
23Tahj OwensSSR6'0"205
24Camari PattersonSFR5'10"190
26Kouri CrumpSSR6'3"205
29Trevon CollardSFR6'0"170
30Keegan McCueSFR5'10"170
20Palmer DomschkePKSR5'10"186
32Dieter KellyPKJR5'11"200
33Zak ZemanPKFR6'0"170
25Ryan MillmorePJR6'3"200
34Tanner HoltPFR6'0"175
28Will PetersonLSFR6'1"215
46Drew DoyleLSSO6'1"242

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
30.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
13.5
scoring defense
Differential
+17.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
221.0#128
Yards / play
3.3#133
Passing yards / game
89.0#129
Rushing yards / game
132.0#92
First downs / game
16.0#117
3rd down %
44.4%#62
4th down %
0.0%#108
Time of possession
40:08#4
Defense
Yards allowed / game
276.0#53
Yards / play allowed
5.8#102
Pass yards allowed / game
170.0#59
Rush yards allowed / game
106.0#63
3rd down % allowed
30.0%#48
Sacks
1#104
Tackles for loss
1#134
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#14
Takeaways
3#30
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
5.0#38
Penalty yards / game
40.0#39

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

run-leaning

Western Michigan runs it: Lance Taylor's offenses have been run-leaning across 3 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 21st at shutting down the ground game. The way in is 138th at hitting chunk plays.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+1.2%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −11.4% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Western Michigan has played 1 game against a soft slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #21
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #21
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #22
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #138
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
8.33.7
projected final record (now 11)
Exp. wins left
7.3
of 10 games
Bowl odds
98%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
95%
vs Bowling Green
Toughest
43%
vs Boise State

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

1234567891011
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 8-4 (28%)Bowl eligible 98% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
WRBaylin Brooks, Egypt Nelson +3
+18.5 EPA
QBBroc Lowry
+12.3 EPA
TEAdam Parks, Nathan Levicki
-0.6 EPA
RBCole Cabana, Jalen Buckley +1
-1.0 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBBroc Lowry
~$642K
EPA +12.30.219/play56 snaps
EPA +2.20.070/play31 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off-0.048th#127
Def0.2418th#114
Explosiveness
Off1.0718th#114
Def1.0880th#29
Field position
Off61.67th#129
Def82.71st#138
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off1.717th#128
Def3.5042nd#81
Turnovers
Won 5Lost 0
Margin +5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
-0.174th#132
Off · rush
-0.0420th#111

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.0420th#111
Def0.1626th#103
Passing
Off-0.174th#132
Def0.3131st#96

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.66#106
2nd-level / open-field
0.57 / 0.05
Power / stuff (off)
66.7% / 18.2%
Havoc — total (def)
16.7%#64
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.3% / 10.4%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.21
Def0.10
Pass downs
Off0.28
Def0.55

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.20#124-0.32#1320.67#60
Defense0.10#104-0.17#240.91#125

Elo Trajectory

@MichiganFinal
Elo rating 15301534+4 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play-0.0411th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.2425th
  • Offense success rate33%12th
  • Defense success rate allowed44%27th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs38%15th
  • Offense success — passing downs24%23rd
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs50%24th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs29%47th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.123rd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.171st
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.705th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.163rd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.724th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.410th
  • Offense highlight yards0.0511th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.3370th
  • Offense power success0.6738th
  • Defense power success allowed0.7548th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1840th
  • Defense stuff rate0.084th

Third down

  • Third down conversion47%57th
  • Third down distance faced7.233rd
  • Third down conversion allowed30%67th
  • Third down distance forced6.528th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1613th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0331st

Drives

  • Points per drive0.9020th
  • Points per drive allowed0.7885th
  • Average starting field position3588th
  • Opponent starting field position1699th
  • Available yards gained37%25th
  • Available yards allowed26%89th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive90%70th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed67%84th
  • Points per scoring opportunity1.012th
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.287th
  • Three-and-out rate20%66th
  • Three-and-outs forced56%96th

Roster

  • Returning usage100%99th
  • Returning EPA15664th
  • Team talent composite57222nd
  • Recruiting class rank11219th
  • Recruiting class points17119th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Run-first offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
-0.037#127 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
-0.167#132
Rush EPA/play
-0.039#111
Explosiveness
1.068#114
Pts/opportunity
1.71#128
Success rate
32.9%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.128 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.236#114 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
16.7%#64
Front-7 havoc
6.3%
DB havoc
10.4%
Big play rate allowed
1.079#29
Success rate allowed
43.8%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

30.5 PPG offense, 13.5 allowed — +17.0 margin/game
Points per game
30.5
Points allowed/game
13.5
Scoring margin/game
+17.0
Turnover margin
+5won 5 · lost 0
Production returning
100%
Talent rank (247)
#108

1-1 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE8thEXPLOSIVENESS18thFINISHING7thFIELD POS7thDEFENSE18thHAVOC54th50th100th
Offense
8th
Explosiveness
18th
Finishing
7th
Field Pos
7th
Defense
18th
Havoc
54th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+2.7
#61
Offense
-2.3
#90
Defense
-5.0
#41
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 10 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive0.900.78
Starting field positionown 34.8own 16.4
Available yards37.5%25.9%
Scoring opportunities90.0%66.7%
Points per opportunity1.001.17
Three-and-out rate20.0%55.6%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
34.4%
Expected, given the spots
49.6%
Over expected
-15.2
Fourth down vs peers
-11
Fourth down vs the model
-40
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Western Michigan is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Western Michigan in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Hawai'iSP+ -7.0
Off EPA/play -0.007Def EPA/play +0.247Elo 1426
Match
98%
Oklahoma StateSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play -0.018Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1212
Match
96%
UNLVSP+ +2.3
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.186Elo 1589
Match
95%
RiceSP+ -10.4
Off EPA/play +0.060Def EPA/play +0.229Elo 1196
Match
95%
Washington StateSP+ -3.7
Off EPA/play -0.060Def EPA/play +0.147Elo 1601
Match
95%
Bowling GreenSP+ -12.8
Off EPA/play +0.025Def EPA/play +0.147Elo 1340
Match
94%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +5.0, #54 of 1282016: +13.1, #22 of 1282017: -7.7, #89 of 1302018: -10.2, #97 of 1302019: -6.2, #88 of 1302020: +14.6, #18 of 1242021: -0.2, #72 of 1302022: -22.1, #125 of 1312023: -18.7, #122 of 1332024: -21.7, #126 of 1342025: +1.8, #62 of 1362026: +2.7, #61 of 138
20152026
Now +2.7 · #61 of 138Best +14.6 in 2020Worst -22.1 in 2022

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
1.3-0.3
202510-47-1
71%
9.1+0.9
20246-75-3
46%
5.3+0.7
20234-83-5
33%
4.5-0.5
20225-74-4
42%
4.3+0.7
20218-54-4
62%
9.4-1.4
20204-24-2
67%
4.6-0.6
20197-65-3
54%
6.6+0.4
20187-65-3
54%
7.5-0.5
20176-64-4
50%
6.3-0.3

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

2.8%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 8.8-3.8. Wins the Mid-American in 40%.

If they finish with…

36%
1 loss
2.0%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

Win out and it is 36%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

up 1.3 points since preseasonlost 12-13 to Michigan against an expected margin of 25, so +24.4 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 36% where the average Mid-American team is 27%.
  • The Mid-American takes 0.05 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 2.8% of seasons, having won their league in 99% of those.

Western Michigan’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk4vs Boise State8.3
  • wk8at Toledo4.4
  • wk5at Buffalo3.9
  • wk3at Rice3.7
  • wk13vs Miami (OH)3.6
  • wk7at Central Michigan3.5

Who to root for

Games Western Michigan is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico1.1
  • wk5Charlotte over Memphis0.9
  • wk12Virginia Tech over Miami0.8
  • wk7South Florida over Kent State0.8
  • wk10Southern Miss over James Madison0.7
  • wk13Temple over Memphis0.7
The full playoff picture →

Mid-American

0-0 in league play, projected 6.3-1.71 of 13 by title odds
40%
Wins the Mid-American
59%
Reaches the title game

The Mid-American sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk8Western Michigan at Toledo34.4
  • wk13Miami (OH) at Western Michigan32.8
  • wk5Western Michigan at Buffalo31.6
  • wk9Bowling Green at Western Michigan31.2

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mid-American race →

If not the playoff, then

94%
Bowl eligible
91%
Placed in a bowl
2.8%
In the playoff
6.4%
Season over in November

Western Michigan is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • GameAbove Sports Bowl33%
  • Frisco Bowl8.5%
  • Cure Bowl8.4%
  • Boca Raton Bowl7.7%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl7.4%
  • Independence Bowl7.0%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 6 have sent Western Michigan a player since 2010 — 16 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Western Michigan's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Cass TechnicalMI50
Brother RiceIL30
University SchoolFL21
Wheaton Warrenville SouthIL21
Ben DavisIN20
BolingbrookIL20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.