The big 2015 Western Michigan football guide: Rowing toward the top

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. "Set the bar at three wins and let the Broncos surprise you."

P.J. Fleck looks like Jurgen Klinsmann and recruits like Hugh Freeze. He has put together a comically enthusiastic staff, and he reaped the rewards with an incredible recruiting class.

Now he has to coach them. [...]

The season begins and ends with potential wins. WMU's first three opponents are projected 104th or worse, as are four of its final five. If the new blood results in an immediate transfusion, WMU could reach four to six wins.

But the odds of that coming together are small. Most of WMU's three-star freshmen will be redshirting or trying not to drown, and even if the class ends up successful, only some of that will matter in 2014.

Surprise! In last year's WMU preview, I marveled at Fleck's recruiting ability, but I cautioned against expecting immediate returns.

We almost always overestimate the immediate-impact potential of a good recruiting class. Almost. Granted, there weren't a ton of true-freshman stars across the board, but the extra influx of talent, combined with a common Year Zero effect, gave the Broncos an enormous boost.

We talk about Year Zero a bit in these previews, the idea that sometimes a new coach needs a mulligan year to establish his culture, rearrange the depth chart, and figure out what he has. Year Zero tends to mean that a coach's first year is a disaster, and his second year sees a nice surge. We saw it across FBS last year: N.C. State (Dave Doeren) went from 3-9 to 8-5, Louisiana Tech (Skip Holtz) went from 4-8 to 9-5, UTEP (Sean Kugler) went from 2-10 to 7-6, California (Sonny Dykes) went from 1-11 to 5-7, Arkansas (Bret Bielema) went from 3-9 to 7-6, and Temple (Matt Rhule) went from 2-10 to 6-6.

But nothing could match what WMU did. A year after going 1-11, with seven losses by at least 18 points, Fleck's Broncos came within a half of winning the MAC West. Not even the MAC East -- the MAC West! The tough division!

The incoming freshmen filled in some gaps, and the youngsters who got pushed around became the veterans doing the pushing. The defense improved a little (from 106th in Def. S&P+ to 90th and from 5.8 yards per play allowed to 5.5), and the offense erupted. The Broncos went from averaging 4.8 yards per play to 6.5, from 17.2 points per game to 33.8, and from 121st in Off. S&P+ to 52nd.

WMU finished bowling for just the fifth time ever. Then Fleck once again signed the best recruiting class in the MAC.

It's easy to get starry-eyed about recruiting rankings, to assume they are cure-alls. And to be sure, WMU is doing laps around the rest of the MAC. Two-year recruiting rankings have the Broncos at 73rd, Toledo at 87th, and everybody else 99th or worse. Third-place Akron (99th) is as close to WMU as WMU is to Texas Tech (47th). And when you back that up with the fact that WMU was, per F/+, already the best in the MAC last year ... well ... how do you not get starry-eyed?

2. 31 more minutes

The trick for 2015: figure out how to row the boat for another 31 minutes. With the West on the line, WMU hosted four-time defending West champion NIU on November 28 and raced out to a 21-7 lead. The defense was dominating; after allowing a 65-yard touchdown on the first play, the Broncos had given up just 36 yards in the next six possessions, forcing three punts, two turnovers, and a safety. Everything was working.

Then NIU's Drew Hare hit Da'Ron Brown for 39 yards with a minute left in the first half, setting up a 40-yard field goal before the break. And then NIU scored all 21 points in the second half.

It's tough to knock the champ out. The champ's been there before, and you haven't. In terms of F/+ rankings, WMU outpaced NIU over the course of 2014, and in the four games leading up to their head-to-head battle, the Broncos played at a level NIU didn't hit all year. But with everything on the line, NIU made the plays that WMU did not.

In 2015, it appears three West teams -- WMU, Toledo, NIU -- will stand above the others, and WMU finishes with trips to each primary rival (NIU on No. 18, Toledo on Nov. 27). Can a deeper Bronco squad figure out a way to win at least one of the two?

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 6-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 56
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
31-Aug	at Purdue	84	34-43	L	26%	-14.9	57%
14-Sep	at Idaho	112	45-33	W	69%	11.8	100%
21-Sep	Murray State	N/A	45-14	W	48%	-1.1	100%
28-Sep	at Virginia Tech	33	17-35	L	14%	-25.7	9%
5-Oct	Toledo	59	19-20	L	25%	-15.6	21%
12-Oct	at Ball State	91	42-38	W	55%	3.0	90%
19-Oct	at Bowling Green	98	26-14	W	44%	-3.7	79%
26-Oct	Ohio	106	42-21	W	81%	20.1	100%
2-Nov	at Miami (Ohio)	103	41-10	W	89%	28.3	100%
16-Nov	Eastern Michigan	128	51-7	W	92%	32.8	100%
23-Nov	at Central Michigan	85	32-20	W	69%	11.6	93%
29-Nov	Northern Illinois	69	21-31	L	7%	-34.7	1%
21-Dec	vs. Air Force	48	24-38	L	30%	-12.1	27%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	31.5	52	31.4	90
Points Per Game	33.8	33	24.9	43

3. A spectacular four-game surge

What WMU did over the first seven games of the season was impressive enough. The Broncos had doubled 2013's win total by the third game of the year, played reasonably competitive ball against Virginia Tech and Toledo, and took down Ball State and Bowling Green on the road. They were 4-3 and on track for bowl eligibility, and Fleck was the front-runner for MAC coach of the year awards.

The back-to-back road wins gave WMU an incredible boost. And in the next four games, the Broncos went from surprisingly good to dominant. It's not that they beat Ohio, Miami, EMU, and CMU -- they dominated them. Average score: WMU 42, opponent 13. Average yards per play: WMU 7.3, opponent 5.1. WMU began playing at a level that would have led to wins in the Big Ten, much less the MAC.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 7 games): 42% (record: 4-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (next 4 games): 83% (record: 4-0)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 2 games): 19% (record: 0-2)

Honestly, the late-season fade might have been a blessing. It tamped expectations. It added a quest for redemption to the end of what was already a hell of a redemption tale. It gave Fleck something to harp on in the offseason.

But the four-game tease that preceded the fade was more than a little bit tantalizing. The 83rd percentile is top-25 caliber. And for a team that returns 16 starters and almost all of last year's second string, it tells you what the ceiling could be.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.02	5	IsoPPP+	113.2	40
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	43.6%	49	Succ. Rt. +	102.6	59
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	30.9	87	Def. FP+	95.1	116
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	5.4	1	Redzone S&P+	113.1	31
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.3		ACTUAL	20	-1.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	41	49	62	40
RUSHING	57	65	79	51
PASSING	35	34	44	30
Standard Downs		51	69	40
Passing Downs		39	59	33

Q1 Rk	86	1st Down Rk	68
Q2 Rk	28	2nd Down Rk	34
Q3 Rk	44	3rd Down Rk	102
Q4 Rk	93

4. Slow and balanced

There are no tricks for Fleck and offensive coordinator Kirk Ciarrocca. In signing more three-star recruits than most of the MAC combined over the last two years, WMU hasn't wooed prospects with the promise of some trendy offense. Ciarrocca is an old-school, East Coast guy. The Broncos operated at one of the lowest tempos in the country and tried to run through you, then pass over you.

We talk a lot about underdog tactics, but WMU basically used favorite tactics. And when you have more athleticism than everybody else, that might not be the worst idea.

WMU was almost impossibly balanced, running and throwing at rates that almost mirrored national averages: 59.5 percent rushing on standard downs (0.5 percent from the national average), 33.9 percent on passing downs (0.9 percent from the average). They ran more when they were ahead, they threw more when they were behind, and, thanks mostly to big back Jarvion Franklin, they finished drives in the end zone as well as almost anybody.

And considering who returns -- Franklin, starting quarterback Zach Terrell, last year's top five wideouts and top two tight ends, and three two-year starting linemen (plus a couple upperclassmen with experience) -- there's no reason to think they'll have to get much more creative.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player

Ht, Wt

2015 Year

Rivals

247 Comp.

Comp

Att

Yards

TD

INT

Comp Rate

Sacks

Sack Rate

Yards/ Att.

Zach Terrell

6'1, 210

Jr.

2 stars (5.3)

0.7880

250

368

3443

26

10

67.9%

22

5.6%

8.5

Cameron Thomas

6'2, 179

So.

2 stars (5.4)

0.8076

Chance Stewart

6'5, 220

RSFr.

3 stars (5.7)

0.8672

Jon Wassink

6'3, 195

Fr.

2 stars (5.4)

0.8174

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Jarvion Franklin	RB	6'0, 220	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7967	307	1551	24	5.1	5.3	35.2%	8	3
Dareyon Chance	RB					69	321	1	4.7	2.9	39.1%	0	0
Zach Terrell	QB	6'1, 210	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7880	56	395	3	7.1	4.6	62.5%	7	2
Fabian Johnson	RB	5'7, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7700	19	64	0	3.4	2.9	31.6%	1	0
Daniel Braverman	WR	5'10, 164	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8006	5	66	1	13.2	30.2	40.0%	2	1
Donnie Ernsberger	FB	6'2, 237	So.	NR	NR
Jamauri Bogan	RB	5'8, 170	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8133
Leo Ekwoge	RB	5'11, 205	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8206
Davon Tucker	RB	5'10, 205	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8301

5. Jarvion Franklin's basically a junior already

Going by recruiting rankings alone, Jarvion Franklin should have been the No. 3 freshman in WMU's backfield. Both Jamauri Bogan and Leo Ekwoge graded out higher than Franklin according to the 247Sports Composite. But while Bogan and Ekwoge needed time in the weight room and on the practice squad, Franklin came out of the package ready to roll. The 220-pound specimen immediately worked his way into the starting lineup, carrying 19 times for 163 yards against Purdue in his debut. And by the end of his third game, he had carried 82 times in his career.

Through nine games, Franklin had carried 242 times. His per-game carries put even those of Georgia's Nick Chubb to shame, and Chubb got to ease his way into the lineup for the first month of the season.

Ciarrocca is an old-school guy, and Franklin is an old-school back. Despite his size and an almost irresponsible workload, he showed impressive explosiveness in open-field opportunities, and his 35 percent opportunity rate (not great for a big back) shows that he could still improve.

It shouldn't have been a surprise that Franklin faded. He was banged up enough to see only 23 carries against EMU and CMU, and he gained just 118 yards in 41 carries against NIU and Air Force. He was averaging 5.5 yards per carry through 10 games, and that sank to 5.1 by the end of the year.

It will be interesting to see how Franklin's workload changes. He'll have had an opportunity to actually rebuild himself a bit in the weight room. But he'll also have more help; then-senior Dareyon Chance was a decent backup, but Franklin will be complemented by a trio of exciting young backs: not only could Bogan and Ekwoge be ready to share the load, but incoming three-star Davon Tucker could be as well. If at least one of those three proves ready to steal eight to 10 carries per game (Chance averaged 5.3), Franklin might have more gas.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Corey Davis	WR-X	6'2, 205	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	115	78	1408	67.8%	32.7%	55.7%	12.2	474	12.4	219.7
Daniel Braverman	WR-X	5'10, 164	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8006	106	86	996	81.1%	30.1%	65.1%	9.4	-3	9.7	155.5
Timmy Keith (2013)	WR	6'0, 203	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8125	50	20	218	40.0%	12.4%	58.3%	4.4	-99	4.5	23.8
Darius Phillips	WR-Z	5'10, 179	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8300	40	32	479	80.0%	11.4%	50.0%	12.0	107	11.7	74.8
Kendrick Roberts	WR-Z	6'3, 203	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8056	30	16	202	53.3%	8.5%	66.7%	6.7	1	6.3	31.5
Jarvion Franklin	RB	6'0, 220	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7967	18	14	163	77.8%	5.1%	72.2%	9.1	-1	8.7	25.5
Eric Boyden	TE	6'4, 243	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7444	13	10	60	76.9%	3.7%	69.2%	4.6	-57	5.1	9.4
Dareyon Chance	RB					10	5	19	50.0%	2.8%	70.0%	1.9	-45	2.0	3.0
Michael Henry	WR	5'10, 172	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	9	6	86	66.7%	2.6%	66.7%	9.6	14	9.0	13.4
Fabian Johnson	RB	5'7, 192	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7700	5	4	47	80.0%	1.4%	0.0%	9.4	0	N/A	7.3
Taylor Moton	RT	6'5, 291	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7644	2	2	-6	100.0%	0.6%	0.0%	-3.0	-29	N/A	-0.9
Lucas Bezerra	TE	6'4, 242	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7733
Javonte Seabury	WR	5'9, 170	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8472
LeVante Bellamy	WR	5'11, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619
Kadeem Goulburne	WR	6'4, 200	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8302
Anton Curtis	WR	6'3, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8124

6. Too many targets

It's amazing what a reliable run game and a more experienced quarterback can do for a receiver.

In 2013, Corey Davis led WMU in targets, catches, and yards as a freshman, but his averages (49.6 percent catchr ate, 7.0 yards per target) were lackluster. In 2014, he caught 68 percent of his passes and averaged a dynamite 12.2 yards per target. He caught at least six passes in eight of 12 games, gained at least 99 yards in nine games, caught nine for 212 against Ohio, and, as Air Force bottled Franklin up, caught eight for 176 and three scores in the Potato Bowl.

Davis is a proven go-to guy. But with Franklin and the backs likely to command the ball, I'm curious about the distribution in the receiving corps. Because not only does Davis return, so does 2014 breakout receiver Daniel Braverman (18 catches in 2012, redshirt in 2013, 86 catches). And explosive three-star sophomore Darius Phillips might have earned more touches. And high-three-star youngsters Javonte Seabury and LeVante Bellamy. And tight end Eric Boyden. And Franklin, who averaged 9.1 yards per target out of the backfield.

WMU has the best problem you can have: too many options.

(I've glossed over Terrell, but his improvement from 2013 to 2014 was dramatic: his completion rate rose from 53 to 68 percent, his interception rate fell from 3.2 percent to 2.7 percent, his sack rate fell from 6.3 percent to 5.6 percent, and his per-completion average rose from 12.0 yards to 13.8. An improved supporting cast will obviously help a quarterback, but that level of improvement doesn't happen without the quarterback himself taking steps.)

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	99.1	2.93	3.04	38.8%	67.3%	16.8%	101.1	3.8%	8.1%
Rank	79	65	90	73	64	30	69	41	76

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Willie Beavers	LT	6'4, 309	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8156	27	2014 2nd All-MAC
James Kristof	LG	6'3, 296	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7788	27
Jon Hoffing	C					26
Taylor Moton	RT	6'5, 291	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7644	25
Mario Rodriguez	RG					13
Jackson Day	C	6'3, 279	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8088	2
John Jackson	LT	6'2, 319	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	0
Zach Novoselsky	LG	6'5, 295	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8006	0
Curtis Doyle	RG	6'5, 304	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8076	0
Chukwuma Okorafor	RT	6'5, 275	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8547	0
Wesley French	OL	6'5, 300	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8430
John Keenoy	OL	6'3, 285	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8307

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.84	65	IsoPPP+	91.8	95
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	39.3%	41	Succ. Rt. +	100.5	61
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	28.7	97	Off. FP+	95.1	116
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.0	34	Redzone S&P+	93.5	91
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	24.7		ACTUAL	23.0	-1.7

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	46	81	62	95
RUSHING	48	87	67	97
PASSING	49	66	57	68
Standard Downs		86	55	99
Passing Downs		72	100	61

Q1 Rk	103	1st Down Rk	82
Q2 Rk	49	2nd Down Rk	109
Q3 Rk	79	3rd Down Rk	39
Q4 Rk	92

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	98.4	3.04	2.70	35.8%	66.7%	19.6%	98.9	4.8%	6.2%
Rank	70	80	23	31	60	60	69	60	84

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jarrell McKinney	DE	6'4, 216	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7759	13	34.5	4.9%	7.5	3.5	0	2	0	0
Richard Ash	NT					13	31.5	4.5%	7.5	2.5	0	2	0	0
Andre Turner	DE	6'3, 218	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7867	13	22.5	3.2%	2.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Nathan Braster	DE	6'5, 252	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8248	12	20.5	2.9%	4.0	2.0	0	1	0	0
Cleveland Smith	DT	6'1, 233	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7333	12	19.0	2.7%	8.5	5.5	0	1	0	0
Jamar Simpkins	DE	6'2, 277	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	11	13.0	1.9%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Nick Matich	DT	6'2, 300	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7756	13	11.5	1.6%	1.0	0.5	0	0	0	0
Keion Adams	DE	6'3, 230	Jr.	NR	NR	13	9.5	1.4%	2.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
David Curle	NT	6'2, 290	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7800	12	4.0	0.6%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Khairi Bailey	DE	6'3, 251	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8100
Eric Assoua	DE	6'2, 230	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8256
Donte Horton	DE	6'4, 205	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8073
Anthony Rabasa (Notre Dame)	DE	6'3, 250	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8772	3			0	0	0	1	0	0

7. Speed > strength

Richard Ash is one of two members of the front seven's two deep not scheduled to return, and to be sure, a wave of experience can wash away concerns about any specific player's departure. But Ash was a 6'3, 314-pound road grader for a defense that didn't otherwise boast much size. Because of a nasty secondary, WMU opponents tended to choose rushing on standard downs, and Ash was a key component in making sure WMU didn't get pushed around.

Ash's departure puts a lot of pressure on sophomore Nick Matich (6'2, 300) and junior David Curie (6'2, 290). WMU returns just about every fast member of the front seven, including sub-220 ends Jarrell McKinney and Andre Turner and ace blitzer Robert Spillane. But even with Ash, WMU only ranked 87th in Rushing S&P+ last year. It might be difficult to keep those numbers from sinking if Matich and Curie can't hold their own, especially considering the only departing linebacker (Trevor Ishmael) might have been the best run defender in his unit, too.

If size doesn't end up being much of a weakness, speed will be a strength. Cleveland Smith is tiny for a defensive tackle, but he was also WMU's best pass rusher. Turner and Nathan Braster made plays as freshman ends, Spillane showed major promise as a freshman, and undersized Grant DePalma went from walk-on scout-teamer to tackling machine.

There's a lot to like, but it all depends on the tackles.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Grant DePalma	MIKE	5'9, 218	Sr.	NR	NR	13	80.5	11.5%	8.0	2.5	0	0	0	0
Trevor Ishmael	SAM					13	60.0	8.6%	9.0	2.0	1	4	0	0
Robert Spillane	WILL	6'2, 225	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8177	13	50.0	7.1%	5.5	4.0	0	0	0	0
Austin Lewis (2013)	MIKE	6'3, 215	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7833	9	27.0	3.8%	2.0	0.0	0	1	1	0
Devon Brant	MIKE	5'10, 230	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7798	6	27.0	3.9%	0.5	0.5	0	4	0	0
Lucas Cherocci	WILL	5'11, 216	So.	NR	NR	7	4.5	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Caleb Bailey	LB	5'11, 221	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8289	9	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
JaKevin Jackson	SAM	6'3, 204	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8604	4	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jason Sylva	LB	6'3, 245	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8089
Alex Grace	LB	6'2, 200	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8170

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Justin Currie	FS					13	87.5	12.5%	0.5	0	1	7	0	1
Donald Celiscar	CB					13	57.5	8.2%	1	1	4	17	1	0
Rontavious Atkins	SS	6'0, 194	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8125	13	53.5	7.6%	1	0	0	9	1	0
Ronald Zamort	CB	5'10, 157	Sr.	NR	NR	13	22.0	3.1%	1	1	4	17	1	0
Brian Williams	CB					13	15.5	2.2%	0	0	1	5	0	0
Asantay Brown	FS	6'0, 190	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7881	10	10.5	1.5%	0	0	0	0	2	0
Deontae Brown	SS	6'1, 200	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7897	12	9.5	1.4%	0.5	0.5	2	0	0	0
Logan Oce	CB	5'11, 173	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7855	6	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tyree Stone-Davis	CB	6'3, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8137
Justin Ferguson	S	6'2, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8918
Antione Stone	DB	5'11, 190	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7726
Justin Tranquill	S	5'11, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8705
Jett Spencer	CB	5'10, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8282
Davontae Ginwright	DB	6'3, 195	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8042

8. Havoc

Havoc Rate is your combined tackles for loss, forced fumbles, and passes defensed divided by your total plays. It is a quick look at your overall aggressiveness. WMU logged a mediocre 62 TFLs and forced only five fumbles in 2014, but the Broncos ranked 42nd in Havoc Rate at 17 percent (third in the MAC) because of the secondary.

While its offense shrank the game down and opponents focused on rushing on first down, WMU managed to intercept or break up 83 passes, the fourth-most in the country. And looking only at defensive backs, WMU's 10.2 percent havoc rate was second in FBS, behind only Florida (10.4 percent).

WMU's defensive identity centered around a mean secondary. Corners Donald Celiscar and Ronald Zamort tied for the national lead with 21 passes defensed, safeties Justin Currie and Rontavious Atkins pitched in another 17, and freshman backups Asantay Brown and Deontae Brown (unrelated somehow) pitched in with a couple of picks and forced fumbles.

The development of the Browns could be key. Currie and Celiscar are gone, as is No. 3 corner Brian Williams. The team's best 2014 unit has the most pieces to replace, and while Zamort and Atkins are back, the recent run of successful recruiting will need to quickly bear fruit.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
J. Schroeder	6'0, 205	Sr.	58	42.8	2	10	20	51.7%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Brett Scanlon	6'0, 205	Jr.	77	61.5	25	1	32.5%
Andrew Haldeman	5'10, 168	Sr.	4	51.3	0	0	0.0%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Andrew Haldeman	5'10, 168	Sr.	51-56	13-16	81.3%	1-1	100.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Darius Phillips	KR	5'10, 179	So.	30	26.4	1
Dareyon Chance	KR			3	18.0	0
Daniel Braverman	PR	5'10, 164	Jr.	14	1.5	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	64
Field Goal Efficiency	76
Punt Return Efficiency	100
Kick Return Efficiency	75
Punt Efficiency	20
Kickoff Efficiency	58
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	88

9. Wanted: more field position help

The primary components of field position are kicks, returns, and offensive and defensive efficiency. Looking at the opponent adjusted numbers above, WMU ranked in the top 65 in both offensive and defensive Success Rate+ but ranked a brutal 116th in both offensive and defensive field position (FP+).

J. Schroeder is a strong punter, but kick coverage and returns left something to be desired, to put it nicely. All the key special teams components return, but they'll need to produce more.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
4-Sep	Michigan State	11
12-Sep	at Georgia Southern	57
19-Sep	Murray State	NR
26-Sep	at Ohio State	1
10-Oct	Central Michigan	85
17-Oct	at Ohio	106
24-Oct	Miami (Ohio)	103
29-Oct	at Eastern Michigan	128
5-Nov	Ball State	91
11-Nov	Bowling Green	98
18-Nov	at Northern Illinois	69
27-Nov	at Toledo	59

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-13.6% (85)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	73 / 85
2014 TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	3 / 3.4
2014 TO Luck/Game	-0.2
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	16 (9, 7)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	8.8 (-0.8)

10. Surging again vs. solidifying gains

One of the biggest mistakes we make in forecasting college football is in making this statement: "[Team A] surged forward last year, and despite the loss of [key stars], we think they'll do it again this year!"

I used to call it the Nebraska Effect because of the way the Huskers were supposed to rise further in 2010 after losing Ndamukong Suh's destructive presence. Or maybe the Jevan Snead Effect because of how Ole Miss was supposed to improve drastically again after going from 3-9 to 9-4 in 2008.

Both Ole Miss in 2009 and Nebraska in 2010 did well just to solidify their gains from the year before. When you look at how well WMU played for most of November, and you see the glossy final F/+ ranking (59th), and you notice how many players return, it could be tempting to predict another huge step forward. But solidifying gains would be awfully impressive considering how drastic those gains were.

Of course, WMU might need to improve to conquer one hell of a schedule. The season starts with a ferocious September (Michigan State, at Georgia Southern in the Mid-Major Surge Bowl, at defending national champion Ohio State) and finishes with trips to NIU and Toledo. WMU should be able to put together a nice midseason winning streak, but the season will be remembered for the start and finish. If WMU plays at last year's level, the Broncos will bowl again but will struggle to surpass last year's eight wins. But if the Broncos do improve, then there are opportunities for something spectacular -- either a huge early upset, a MAC title, or both.

That we're saying this about a taem that went 1-11 in 2013 is amazing. Row that boat, P.J. Fleck.