Skip to main content
Come Fan with UsSaturday, June 20, 2026

2017 Cotton Bowl stats preview: Wisconsin vs. Western Michigan advanced tale of the tape

Western Michigan Broncos (13-0) vs. Wisconsin Badgers (10-3)

January 02, 2017 ( 1:00 PM ET, ESPN )
Spread: Wisconsin -7.5
S&P+ Projection: Wisconsin (32.2-24.3)

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Statistical profiles index.
Full Football Outsiders F/+ rankings can be found here.

The Basics
Category Western Michigan Wisconsin
S&P+ (Rk) 36 16
Category Western Michigan offense Wisconsin defense Wisconsin offense Western Michigan defense
Yards per play (Rk) 6.47 (15) 4.76 (20) 5.23 (87) 5.51 (68)
Yards per game (Rk) 490.5 (18) 304.7 (6) 386.8 (85) 347.7 (24)
Points per possession (Rk) 3.82 (1) 1.24 (4) 2.33 (57) 1.65 (25)
Category Western Michigan offense Wisconsin defense Wisconsin offense Western Michigan defense
S&P+ (Rk) 37.3 (22) 15.3 (5) 30.8 (57) 29.6 (68)
Rushing S&P+ (Rk) 110.5 (36) 123.1 (16) 107.9 (44) 92.8 (94)
Passing S&P+ (Rk) 134.4 (5) 119.7 (16) 128.6 (10) 99.8 (62)
Standard Downs S&P+ (Rk) 119.6 (13) 119.3 (12) 113.9 (25) 96.0 (83)
Passing Downs S&P+ (Rk) 110.7 (44) 122.6 (18) 119.2 (24) 99.1 (73)
Q1 S&P+ (Rk) 119.2 (29) 126.1 (14) 129.6 (15) 93.7 (91)
Q2 S&P+ (Rk) 120.1 (22) 115.8 (24) 120.7 (20) 93.9 (90)
Q3 S&P+ (Rk) 129.2 (12) 120.7 (16) 107.6 (47) 98.6 (69)
Q4 S&P+ (Rk) 109.8 (34) 127.0 (7) 108.1 (43) 99.2 (66)
Five biggest advantages* (according to the advanced stats)

* or smallest disadvantages

Western Michigan

  1. Standard Downs Sack Rate (No. 29 offense vs. No. 96 defense)
  2. Adj. Sack Rate (No. 39 defense vs. No. 62 offense)
  3. First Down S&P+ (No. 9 offense vs. No. 30 defense)
  4. Field Position (No. 3 defense vs. No. 19 offense)
  5. Adj. Line Yards (No. 11 offense vs. No. 23 defense)

Wisconsin

  1. Redzone S&P+ (No. 22 offense vs. No. 119 defense)
  2. Rushing Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 23 offense vs. No. 106 defense)
  3. Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 12 offense vs. No. 89 defense)
  4. Adj. Line Yards (No. 44 offense vs. No. 117 defense)
  5. Standard Downs Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 13 offense vs. No. 86 defense)
Five Factors
Category Western Michigan offense Wisconsin defense Wisconsin offense Western Michigan defense
EXPLOSIVENESS 1.27 (63) 1.18 (27) 1.16 (116) 1.25 (59)
EFFICIENCY 51.7% (5) 36.4% (17) 43.5% (52) 40.3% (44)
FIELD POSITION 30.6 (42) 27.2 (21) 32.5 (19) 25.4 (3)
FINISHING DRIVES 5.3 (7) 3.5 (6) 4.3 (86) 4.5 (68)
TURNOVER MARGIN EXPECTED:
Western Michigan 5.06 (26)
Wisconsin 8.58 (10)
ACTUAL
Western Michigan 19 (2)
Wisconsin 11 (6)
Offensive Footprint
Category (Rk) Western Michigan offense Wisconsin offense
Adj. Pace 3.4 (28) 1.9 (47)
Plays per game 75.8 (48) 74.0 (59)
Possessions per game 11.4 (125) 12.3 (105)
Std. Downs Run Rate 67.5% (24) 73.8% (9)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 36.3% (41) 33.8% (64)
% of solo tackles 71.7% (92) 71.7% (91)
Defensive Footprint
Category (Rk) Western Michigan defense Wisconsin defense
Std. Downs Run Rate 56.4% (98) 57.9% (82)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 29.7% (103) 25.0% (124)
Overall Havoc Rate 17.0% (37) 19.5% (11)
Front 7 Havoc Rate 10.7% (34) 10.7% (32)
DB Havoc Rate 6.1% (68) 8.5% (12)
PD to INC 31.6% (82) 38.5% (14)

When Western Michigan has the ball…

Standard Downs
Western Michigan Offense Wisconsin Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 119.6 13 119.3 12
Standard Downs Success Rate 56.8 2 42.1 21 Western Michigan
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.20 34 1.12 10 Wisconsin
SD Line Yards per Carry 3.36 14 2.56 20
SD Sack Rate 3.3% 29 3.7% 96 Western Michigan big
Passing Downs
Western Michigan Offense Wisconsin Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 110.7 44 122.6 18 Wisconsin
Passing Downs Success Rate 36.8 16 25.4 15
Passing Downs IsoPPP 1.59 111 1.67 88 Wisconsin
PD Line Yards per Carry 4.13 6 2.50 13
PD Sack Rate 5.8% 34 9% 33

When Wisconsin has the ball…

Standard Downs
Wisconsin Offense Western Michigan Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 113.9 25 96.0 83 Wisconsin big
Standard Downs Success Rate 47.5 68 44.3 38 Western Michigan
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.05 98 0.99 72 Western Michigan
SD Line Yards per Carry 3.01 66 3.08 84 Wisconsin
SD Sack Rate 3.3% 29 5.8% 44 Wisconsin
Passing Downs
Wisconsin Offense Western Michigan Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 119.2 24 99.1 73 Wisconsin
Passing Downs Success Rate 33.8 35 30.8 60 Wisconsin
Passing Downs IsoPPP 1.54 118 1.79 39 Western Michigan big
PD Line Yards per Carry 1.72 126 3.86 116 Western Michigan
PD Sack Rate 10.2% 103 5% 111

Stats via SportSource Analytics

College Football
The NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their sideThe NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their side
College Football

A big can of worms has been opened in college sports

By Mark Schofield
College Football
Here’s your first look at ‘College Football 27’ and ‘Madden 27’Here’s your first look at ‘College Football 27’ and ‘Madden 27’
College Football

Mascot game! Tush push!

By James Dator
NFL
Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next?Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next?
NFL

Brendan Sorsby calls out NCAA hypocrisy as his football future is uncertain

By Mark Schofield
College Football
NAACP urges black athletes to reject recruiting in racially gerrymandered statesNAACP urges black athletes to reject recruiting in racially gerrymandered states
College Football

The NAACP is asking athletes to take up the fight for voting rights.

By James Dator
College Football
Oregon coach asks recruits about their favorite ice cream, and it actually makes senseOregon coach asks recruits about their favorite ice cream, and it actually makes sense
College Football

Oregon coaches have a strange question for potential recruits.

By Mark Schofield
NFL
Why Jeremiyah Love brings top-5 value to NFL Draft as a RBWhy Jeremiyah Love brings top-5 value to NFL Draft as a RB
NFL

The Notre Dame star is the rare running back worth a top-10 or even top-5 pick.

By Mark Schofield