Player Stats

Willie McNeal College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Receiving yards
2,181
Receptions
171
Touchdowns
22

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2010 Regular SeasonWestern Kentucky1226360363.8
2011 Regular SeasonWestern Kentucky0-00-
2012 PostseasonWestern Kentucky13350066.6
2012 Regular SeasonWestern Kentucky1340506666.6
2013 Regular SeasonWestern Kentucky1246599574.2
2014 PostseasonWestern Kentucky125155168.5
2014 Regular SeasonWestern Kentucky1251511768.5

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season

Western Kentucky paired 599 primary output with 76.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

2014 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 65.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2014 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UTSA

Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 91.7th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2014 Postseason · Western Kentucky

Games

12

Receiving Yards / G

55.5

Efficiency

65.3

Usage

16.5

Consistency

53.9

Best Game by takeover score

UTSA

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Central Michigan: 155. Bowling Green: 70. Illinois: 39. Middle Tennessee: 31. Navy: 42. UAB: 49. Florida Atlantic: 56. Louisiana Tech: -3. UTEP: 41. Army: 57. UTSA: 105. Marshall: 24

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Central Michigan: 5 by 100. Bowling Green: 5 by 93.3. Illinois: 4 by 65. Middle Tennessee: 6 by 34.4. Navy: 5 by 56. UAB: 5 by 65.3. Florida Atlantic: 5 by 74.7. Louisiana Tech: 2 by 0. UTEP: 5 by 54.7. Army: 3 by 100. UTSA: 7 by 100. Marshall: 4 by 40

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins70.6 · Games = 7 · +36.2 vs Losses
Losses34.4 · Games = 5 · -36.2 vs Wins