Western Michigan football is rising. Is this the year to finally clear the NIU hurdle?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here. Below, a unique review of last year's team, a unit-by-unit breakdown of this year's roster, the full 2016 schedule with win projections for each game, and more.

1. Taking your time

It feels like P.J. Fleck has been in charge at Western Michigan for a lot longer than three years. With a superhuman energy level, recruiting chops for days, and his own personal catchphrase, Fleck has made the most of his time in Kalamazoo.

He has also proven himself. WMU won more than seven games in a season twice between 2001-13, and the Broncos have now done it in back-to-back seasons. He has recruited at a level MAC teams aren't supposed to sustain, but after a brutal Year 0 season in 2013, he began to turn around the on-field product before these star recruits had time to develop.

He has ambitious plans for WMU, and he's well on his way to accomplishing them.

More impressively, he's still there. Because of his recruiting alone, he's taken on overtures from quite a few mid-level power-conference schools. That he hasn't bitten tells us he doesn't mind playing the long game.

And why should he be? His recruiting rankings are barely below that of Illinois or Purdue and within earshot of Iowa or Minnesota, and in 2015, WMU's on-field product (No. 53 in S&P+) was better than that of Indiana (60), Illinois (61), Maryland (65), and Purdue (86). Hell, the Broncos graded out better than 10-win Northwestern (56). That's nearly half the Big Ten. And again, Fleck's recruiting classes have barely had time to mature.

Plus, there's the matter of unfinished business. WMU has graded out better than six-time defending MAC West champion NIU in each of the last two years, but that hasn't translated into an appearance in the MAC title game ... because it hasn't yet translated into a win over NIU. In 2014, the Broncos led the Huskies by 11 points at halftime in the regular season finale but gave up 24 straight points to finish the game. In 2015, they led 19-14 heading into the fourth quarter in DeKalb, then gave up 13 points and stalled out on a late drive at the NIU 4.

"Row the boat" hasn't yet meant "Finish strong against the champ."

I would love to see Fleck stay a few more years at WMU, holding out for only the highest of high-level jobs (Ohio State or something similar). That's mainly because I'm selfish -- I want to see what sustained recruiting efforts like this can translate to in a MAC built so much around talent parity. We'll see if that's what plays out.

In the meantime, we'll see if what should be Fleck's best team yet can actually clear the NIU hurdle. WMU returns a 3,500-yard passer, a 1,000-yard rusher from each of the last two years, a 1,400-yard receiver, four starters on the offensive line, two defenders with 10-plus tackles for loss in 2015, and a cornerback who defensed 21 passes (fifth in the country).

WMU surged in 2014, then got a little bit better in 2015. The Broncos played like a top-15 team for a little while in the middle of the season. But they still have some more accomplishments to check off the list, and they still have their charming, semi-crazy head coach leading the way.

They also get Northwestern in the S&P+ Bowl to start the year. This is going to be fun.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 8-5 | Final F/+ Rk: 51 | Final S&P+ Rk: 53
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
4-Sep	Michigan State	9	24-37	L	12%	0%	+1.2	+4.0
12-Sep	at Georgia Southern	48	17-43	L	12%	0%	-23.0	-30.5
19-Sep	Murray State	N/A	52-20	W	77%	100%	+7.1
26-Sep	at Ohio State	3	12-38	L	27%	1%	+14.6	+5.5
10-Oct	Central Michigan	67	41-39	W	66%	70%	+7.0	-5.0
17-Oct	at Ohio	69	49-14	W	96%	100%	+53.0	+39.5
24-Oct	Miami-OH	113	35-13	W	78%	98%	-1.4	-3.5
29-Oct	at Eastern Michigan	122	58-28	W	83%	100%	+23.7	+10.0
5-Nov	Ball State	110	54-7	W	96%	100%	+30.6	+32.5
11-Nov	Bowling Green	25	27-41	L	40%	11%	-9.8	-11.5
18-Nov	at Northern Illinois	66	19-27	L	38%	24%	-4.0	-5.0
27-Nov	at Toledo	20	35-30	W	68%	56%	+16.1	+13.0
24-Dec	vs. Middle Tennessee	82	45-31	W	78%	90%	+5.7	+10.5

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	37.5	25	31.6	89
Points Per Game	36.0	26	28.3	79

2. Midseason brilliance

There are two ways to look at WMU's 2015 campaign. The first: WMU started the season slowly, caught fire in October, then slowed down a hair late.

• First 5 games
  Average percentile performance: 39% (~top 80) | Average score: Opp 35, WMU 29 | Record: 2-3
• Next 4 games
  Average percentile performance: 88% (~top 15) | Average score: WMU 49, Opp 16 | Record: 4-0
• Last 4 games
  Average percentile performance: 56% (~top 55) | Average score: WMU 32, Opp 32 | Record: 2-2

There's probably a little bit of value in this view. WMU couldn't keep a linebacker on the field to save its life -- eight LBs finished the season with at least 5 tackles, and six missed a combined 30 games -- and faded defensively.

But it's impossible not to notice how the caliber of opponent played a role in the season's ups and downs. WMU played three strong opponents early and struggled, played a string of bad opponents in the middle of the season and dominated, then watched its hot streak cool off when the opponents improved again at the end.

• vs. S&P+ top 50
  Average percentile performance: 32% (~top 85) | Average score: Opp 38, WMU 23 | Record: 1-4
• vs. S&P+ No. 51-100
  Average percentile performance: 70% (~top 40) | Average score: WMU 39, Opp 28 | Record: 3-1
• vs. S&P+ No. 101+
  Average percentile performance: 84% (~top 20) | Average score: WMU 50, Opp 17 | Record: 4-0

You will find teams that play up or down to their level of competition, finishing with almost no correlation between opponent quality and percentile performance. Then you will find teams like WMU, whose success appeared based on its level of athletic advantage. The Broncos played three top-50 opponents early and lost by an average of 22 points per game, then split two games against good teams (BGSU, Toledo) late.

Meanwhile, WMU was perfectly solid against mid-level teams (slipping up only to NIU, of course) and completely destroyed bad ones. It was a rather orderly season in that regard. Flip the results of the Toledo and NIU games, and it was almost perfectly orderly.

This could say very good things about WMU's prospects in 2016, by the way. Even if WMU doesn't improve -- the projections say no, I say possibly -- the Broncos face only one projected top-50 team, and that's No. 46 Northwestern. They get six teams projected between 52nd and 97th and five projected 101st or worse. Last year's trends would produce a 10-win season.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.42	6	IsoPPP+	123.7	12
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	44.2%	37	Succ. Rt. +	107.1	39
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	28.6	44	Def. FP+	27.4	25
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.9	29	Redzone S&P+	116.7	18
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.8		ACTUAL	17	-2.8

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	17	19	39	12
RUSHING	29	27	42	22
PASSING	26	16	39	10
Standard Downs		23	48	16
Passing Downs		12	37	9

Q1 Rk	15	1st Down Rk	17
Q2 Rk	43	2nd Down Rk	28
Q3 Rk	13	3rd Down Rk	6
Q4 Rk	4

3. Nothing special, just awesome

From a footprint standpoint, there's not a lot that stands out Kirk Ciarrocca's WMU offense. The Broncos were at or near the national averages in terms of standard downs run rate, tempo, and percentage of solo tackles allowed (which is a way to look at how well defenses are spread out). They threw a bit more than normal on passing downs, and they kept passing when up big; that's about the only difference between WMU and your average college offense.

This was pretty much what we saw in 2014, too. The only shifts: WMU ran a bit more on passing downs then and kept the tempo slower.

But when you have the athletes, you don't need to stray from the common script very much. When you can pass at a top-20 level and throw at a top-30 level, you don't need to get particularly creative.

Don't expect to see much straying from this script in 2016, not with the return of quarterback Zach Terrell and receiver Corey Davis. The loss of Daniel Braverman and his 109 receptions will force some adjustment, and if backs Jamauri Bogan and Jarvion Franklin -- a prototype thunder-and-lightning combo if ever one existed -- are both healthy and active, the Broncos could certainly run more frequently with happy effects. But what we've seen is probably what we will see moving forward. And it'll probably work, too.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Zach Terrell	6'2, 204	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7880	262	391	3526	29	9	67.0%	31	7.3%	8.0
Tom Flacco	6'0, 199	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	10	12	188	1	0	83.3%	0	0.0%	15.7
Jon Wassink	6'2, 200	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8174
Matt Little	6'3, 226	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8446

4. Just one more way to improve

Zach Terrell has been the man behind center for most of Fleck's tenure. He played in nine games as a freshman, throwing for 1,602 yards, eight touchdowns, eight interceptions, and a 110.8 passer rating, then raised his game: 3,443 yards and a 164.4 rating in 2014, then 3,526 yards and a 162.6 rating in 2015. His completion rate has been in the 67s each of the last two years, and while his rating held steady last fall, his interception rate went down from 2.7 percent to 2.3.

The last step in Terrell's development: staying upright a bit more. Obviously that's on his line, too, but taking 31 sacks is a good way to knock your offense's efficiency down a decent amount. That's one of the ways you can complete 67 percent of your passes but rank just 39th in Passing Success Rate+.

That Terrell is unafraid of stepping up into the pocket is a strength. It's how you can complete two-thirds of your passes while averaging 13.5 yards per completion. But it has a downside. If he can get a slightly better feel for when to throw the ball away or check down, WMU's offense will be just about unstoppable.

Having a line that returns four of five starters will help in that regard, though the one loss (all-conference tackle Willie Beavers) hurts.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Jamauri Bogan	RB	5'7, 187	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8133	162	1051	16	6.5	9.4	34.6%	1	1
Jarvion Franklin	RB	6'0, 228	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7967	153	735	5	4.8	4.8	35.3%	4	2
LeVante Bellamy	RB	5'9, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619	77	493	2	6.4	5.6	48.1%	4	1
Zach Terrell	QB	6'2, 204	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7880	46	270	3	5.9	3.7	52.2%	2	2
Tom Flacco	QB	6'0, 199	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	28	266	2	9.5	6.8	67.9%	1	0
Fabian Johnson	RB					9	34	0	3.8	3.1	22.2%	1	1
Leo Ekwoge	RB	5'11, 210	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8206
Davon Tucker	RB	5'8, 205	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8301
Matt Falcon	RB	6'1, 210	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8757
Dee Eskridge	RB	5'9, 181	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8228

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Daniel Braverman	SUPER					142	109	1371	76.8%	36.1%	9.7	62.0%	57.0%	1.56
Corey Davis	WR-X	6'3, 213	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000	140	91	1446	65.0%	35.6%	10.3	57.1%	47.1%	2.09
Michael Henry	WR-Z	5'11, 189	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	27	18	247	66.7%	6.9%	9.1	37.0%	48.1%	1.89
Jarvion Franklin	RB	6'0, 228	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7967	22	17	184	77.3%	5.6%	8.4	63.6%	50.0%	1.42
Kendrick Roberts	WR-Z					20	13	205	65.0%	5.1%	10.3	70.0%	55.0%	1.64
Carrington Thompson	WR-X	6'2, 176	Sr.	NR	NR	14	8	89	57.1%	3.6%	6.4	28.6%	50.0%	0.92
LeVante Bellamy	RB	5'9, 185	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8619	6	4	71	66.7%	1.5%	11.8	83.3%	50.0%	2.09
Jamauri Bogan	RB	5'7, 187	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8133	5	3	15	60.0%	1.3%	3.0	60.0%	0.0%	0.00
Fabian Johnson	RB					5	3	14	60.0%	1.3%	2.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Jeremiah Mullinax	TE					4	4	50	100.0%	1.0%	12.5	75.0%	100.0%	1.38
Donnie Ernsberger	TE	6'3, 255	Jr.	NR	NR	4	2	22	50.0%	1.0%	5.5	50.0%	50.0%	1.02
Lucas Bezerra	TE	6'4, 248	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7733
Kadeem Goulbourne	WR	6'3, 206	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8302
Keishawn Watson	SUPER	5'11, 180	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7948
Anton Curtis	WR	6'0, 185	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8124
Kalebb Perry	WR	6'2, 175	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8353
Hunter Broersma	WR	5'11, 189	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8150
Brett Borske	TE	6'5, 225	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8081

5. Losing Braverman hurts, but...

In 2014, Jarvion Franklin walked onto WMU's campus and almost immediately became one of the biggest workhorse backs in the country. He rushed 24 times per game and put up at least 149 yards in seven of his first nine games as a college football player.

Franklin also faded drastically down the stretch. In his last three games, he averaged 20 carries for 65 yards.

Perhaps as a way of preventing a similar fade, and perhaps as a way of having some fun new toys to play with. Ciarocca went with more of a running-back-by-committee approach in 2015. Franklin got exactly half the carries he had as a freshman (153) while freshmen Jamauri Bogan (162) and LeVante Bellamy (77) got plenty as well.

The three combined for 30 carries per game, but the bell cow changed from game to game. Bellamy proved the most efficient (and fumble-prone) of the bunch, while Bogan was one of the most explosive backs in the country. The three-headed approach worked well -- WMU improved from 65th to 27th in Rushing S&P+. (Franklin, by the way, still struggled late. Over his last four games, he averaged just 4.5 carries and 19 yards per game.)

This year, the backfield gets even more crowded. Bogan, Franklin, and Bellamy are back, and not only might three-star sophomores Leo Ekwoge and Davon Tucker command a carry or two here and there, but Fleck added two more three-star backs, including Matt Falcon, the jewel of the 2016 recruiting class. Ciarocca might need to run the ball more just to keep everyone happy. That's the definition of "good problem to have."

Meanwhile, the receiving corps has a huge hole to fill and plenty of interesting candidates. Split Daniel Braverman's production three ways, and you'd have three pretty productive receivers (36 catches for 457 yards each); all three are gone. So is reserve Kendrick Roberts.

Corey Davis is back, though. The big senior was less efficient (Braverman's 57 percent success rate was remarkable) and more explosive than Braverman, and Terrell will need to figure out some new efficiency options. And last year's No. 3, Michael Henry, is more Davis than Braverman. But between last year's understudy Keishawn Watson, senior Carrington Thompson, sophomore Kadeem Goulbourne, redshirt freshman Anton Curtis, and any of three incoming three-star freshmen, the odds are good that someone steps up.

Still, you could see how efficiency could remain a sticking point for this offense. If Terrell's got more deep threats than possession guys, if Bogan's efficiency doesn't improve, and if Terrell's still taking a lot of sacks, that could mean that three-and-outs again gum up an otherwise awesome offense.

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	110.1	2.95	3.96	40.7%	75.9%	16.4%	74.8	7.9%	7.1%
Rank	26	57	6	41	16	20	107	113	59

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Willie Beavers	LT					13	40	2015 1st All-MAC
Taylor Moton	RG	6'5, 328	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7644	13	38
James Kristof	LG					3	30
Chukwuma Okorafor	RT	6'6, 333	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8547	13	13
Jackson Day	LG	6'3, 292	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8088	11	13
John Keenoy	C	6'3, 305	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8307	12	12
Kyle Knapp (Syracuse)	OL	6'4, 298	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8460	0	0
Elliot Jordan	LT	6'6, 282	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7633	0	0
Kristof Ifkovits	LG	6'4, 295	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	0	0
Curtis Doyle	OL	6'5, 308	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8076	0	0
Zach Novoselsky	RG	6'5, 299	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8006	0	0
Wesley French	LG	6'5, 311	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8430
Jonathan Todd	OL	6'6, 330	RSFr.	NR	NR
Spencer Kanz	OL	6'5, 285	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8522
Mike Caliendo	OL	6'3, 273	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8112
Mark Brooks	OL	6'6, 255	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8005

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.44	121	IsoPPP+	88.3	104
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	41.7%	68	Succ. Rt. +	101.4	62
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	29.7	72	Off. FP+	30.7	47
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.8	103	Redzone S&P+	87.9	111
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	23.1		ACTUAL	18.0	-5.1

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	82	92	62	104
RUSHING	76	103	66	118
PASSING	73	76	58	83
Standard Downs		94	55	115
Passing Downs		84	78	82

Q1 Rk	118	1st Down Rk	84
Q2 Rk	68	2nd Down Rk	111
Q3 Rk	72	3rd Down Rk	99
Q4 Rk	94

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	94	2.84	3.77	41.0%	59.4%	23.5%	82.5	1.1%	7.1%
Rank	90	60	120	96	29	21	95	127	71

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Keion Adams	DE	6'2, 245	Sr.	NR	NR	13	33.5	5.1%	10.0	5.5	0	0	1	0
Jarrell McKinney	DE					13	26.5	4.1%	2.5	1.0	0	0	1	0
Cleveland Smith	DT					13	22.0	3.4%	9.0	2.5	0	0	0	0
Nathan Braster	DE	6'5, 272	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8248	12	16.0	2.5%	3.5	1.5	0	1	0	0
Andre Turner	DE	6'4, 266	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7867	13	12.5	1.9%	2.5	1.0	0	0	0	0
David Curle	NT	6'3, 303	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7800	13	12.5	1.9%	2.0	1.0	0	1	1	0
Eric Assuoa	DE	6'2, 230	So.	NR	NR	11	10.0	1.5%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Jamar Simpkins	DT	6'2, 266	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	12	5.5	0.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ken Finley	NT	6'2, 298	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8089	10	4.0	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Nick Matich	NT	6'2, 288	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7756
Daniel Jackson	DT	6'2, 263	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7785
Kailen Guillory	DE	6'4, 240	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8194
Jordan Asbury	DT	6'3, 275	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8021

6. An all-or-nothing run defense

From their semi-predictable alignment, WMU's offense produced a ton of big plays in 2015. The defense, meanwhile, attempted to match. With maybe the MAC's most aggressive secondary, the Broncos risked explosive plays for three-and-outs and turnovers. And while they didn't get nearly enough out of their pass rush, they were still above average from a havoc standpoint.

That said, it's on defensive coordinator Ed Pinkham's side of the ball where WMU needs help. While the Broncos' Off. S&P+ ranking has improved from 121st to 52nd to 25th over the last three years, the Def. S&P+ ranking has moved from 106th to 90th to 89th. That's technically improvement, but not nearly enough of it.

Injuries played a role last year -- as mentioned above, the linebacking corps was Caleb Bailey, Austin Lewis, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from week to week. But the line was healthy and produced almost no pass rush outside of Keion Adams' work.

The run defense was close to something great, though, and would benefit from a more stable linebacking corps. Bailey had 12 tackles for loss, which is an incredibly impressive total considering he had no sacks. He and since-departed tackle Cleveland Smith were the driving forces behind WMU's No. 21 ranking in stuff rate.

Losing Smith hurts, though. While Adams leads the way at end, nose tackle seems manned well with big senior David Curle, and experienced junior Robert Spillane will play a larger role at middle linebacker, there's a gap next to Curle. Smith got a majority of the playing time, and senior Jamar Simpkins and sophomore Daniel Jackson are the most viable replacement options. They combined for 5.5 tackles last year, all from Simpkins.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Caleb Bailey	WILL	6'0, 236	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8289	13	60.0	9.2%	12.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Austin Lewis	SAM					13	49.5	7.6%	5.5	0.0	0	3	0	0
Grant DePalma	MIKE					8	35.0	5.4%	3.0	1.5	0	1	0	0
Robert Spillane	MIKE	6'2, 218	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8177	8	33.0	5.1%	5.5	1.5	0	2	1	0
Jason Sylva	MIKE					6	18.5	2.8%	1.0	0.0	0	1	1	0
Kasey Carson	LB	5'11, 206	So.	NR	NR	9	6.5	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Edward Rolle	SAM	6'2, 204	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8056	7	6.0	0.9%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Lucas Cherocci	LB	5'11, 216	Jr.	NR	NR	10	5.0	0.8%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
JaKevin Jackson	LB	6'2, 221	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8604
Alex Grace	LB	6'2, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8170
Tristian Pipp	LB	6'1, 216	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8415
Eric Rogers	LB	6'0, 224	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8406
Jared Culp	LB	6'2, 202	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8056

7. The pipeline is developing

Adams, Curle, and Simpkins are seniors. So is potential starting linebacker Edward Rolle.

Ends Nathan Braster and Andre Turner, nose Nick Matich, linebackers Bailey and Spillane are juniors. Three were former three-star recruits.

End Eric Assuoa, tackles Ken Finley and Daniel Jackson, and linebackers Kasey Carson and Alex Grace are sophomores. Two were three-stars.

End Kailen Guillory, tackle Jordan Asbury, and three linebackers (Tristian Pipp, Eric Rogers, Jared Culp) are true freshmen. All were three-stars.

You can see the pipeline forming. Each year WMU will boast senior leaders and high-upside underclassmen. It will be the case in 2016 and 2017, and it appears it will be the case beyond that, too.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Asantay Brown	FS	6'0, 203	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7881	13	79.5	12.2%	3	1	2	5	2	0
Rontavious Atkins	SS					13	58.5	9.0%	2	0	1	9	0	0
Ronald Zamort	CB					13	48.5	7.4%	0	0	1	18	0	0
Darius Phillips	CB	5'10, 191	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	13	42.0	6.4%	4.5	0.5	5	16	2	1
Sam Beal	CB	6'1, 177	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7948	12	13.5	2.1%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Ian Thomas	CB					8	5.0	0.8%	1	0	1	0	0	0
Justin Tranquill	DB	5'11, 185	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8705	4	5.0	0.8%	0	0	0	2	0	0
Justin Sears-Motley	SS					9	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Justin Ferguson	FS	6'1, 203	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8918
Malik Rucker (Iowa)	DB	5'10, 174	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8575
Davontae Ginwright	DB	6'2, 191	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8042
Stefan Claiborne	DB	6'0, 173	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8523
Dontre Boyd	DB	5'10, 160	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8360
Drake Spears	DB	6'1, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8254
Emanuel Jackson	DB	5'11, 171	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8219
Brad Tanner	DB	6'2, 182	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8120

8. Depth in the back?

And speaking of a pipeline, Fleck signed five three-star defensive backs this year. A few of them might make the second string, but despite the loss of starting safety Rontavious Atkins and active-as-hell corner Ronald Zamort, it appears the Broncos have more than enough options to avoid freshman hell in the back. Safety Asantay Brown leads the way, and corner Darius Phillips was even more active on the ball than Zamort.

Sophomore Sam Beal and Iowa transfer Malik Rucker could battle it out for the spot opposite Zamort, and if redshirt freshman Justin Tranquill -- the injury-prone gem of the 2015 class who tore his ACL last fall -- can stay on the field, he appears to be a keeper. Former Notre Dame safety Justin Ferguson could take over if Tranquill can't.

Experience in the back is vital, and losing four of last year's top eight should feel a little scary. But aside from Tranquill's knee situation, I feel pretty comfortable with the WMU secondary ... the first string, at least. A couple of injuries, and the redshirts come flying off.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
J. Schroeder			43	41.0	3	8	13	48.8%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Derrick Mitchell	6'2, 203	So.	87	62.5	36	0	41.4%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Andrew Haldeman			53-56	12-15	80.0%	5-7	71.4%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Darius Phillips	KR	5'10, 184	Jr.	36	23.3	1
LeVante Bellamy	KR	5'11, 185	So.	4	21.3	0
Daniel Braverman	PR			10	8.8	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	81
Field Goal Efficiency	55
Punt Return Success Rate	58
Kick Return Success Rate	49
Punt Success Rate	122
Kickoff Success Rate	52

9. The MAC's losing some legs this year

So many MAC teams are replacing kickers and punters this year, and WMU is no exception. Though big-legged kickoffs guy Derrick Mitchell is back and will, I assume, man the punter position this year, losing Andrew Haldeman hurts a bit. Haldeman was a little bit scattershot, missing three PATs, but he was a weapon on longer kicks.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	at Northwestern	46	-6.1	36%
10-Sep	NC Central	NR	27.6	94%
17-Sep	at Illinois	76	-1.4	47%
24-Sep	Georgia Southern	52	1.5	54%
1-Oct	at Central Michigan	85	1.7	54%
8-Oct	Northern Illinois	79	6.2	64%
15-Oct	at Akron	97	5.4	62%
22-Oct	Eastern Michigan	121	14.0	79%
1-Nov	at Ball State	101	7.1	66%
8-Nov	at Kent State	104	7.5	67%
19-Nov	Buffalo	109	17.2	84%
25-Nov	Toledo	58	2.3	55%
Projected wins: 7.6

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-10.2% (84)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	78 / 83
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	1 / 3.2
2015 TO Luck/Game	-0.9
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	70% (79%, 62%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	7.5 (0.5)

10. So much potential

WMU was nearly untouchable against teams outside of the S&P+ top 50 last season and plays only one projected top-50 team this year (though Georgia Southern and Toledo are close). The Broncos have at least a 36 percent chance of winning in every game and are at 62 percent or higher in seven. They return most of the important pieces of their defense and some of the most explosive offensive weapons in the mid-major universe.

This could be a huge season in Kalamazoo, especially if WMU figures out a way past a crafty, limited Northwestern team in the season opener. But while the schedule is certainly lighter this time around, most of these pieces were in place last year, and the Broncos still figured out a way to falter against NIU and lose the division. Is this the year that turns around?