Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense−0.047th
  Defense+0.1334th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense39.6%23rd
  Defense44.9%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.043rd
  Defense+1.2931st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.181st
  Defense+0.2114th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1739th
  Defense+0.1455th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%36th
  Defense51.8%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.8%7th
  Defense25.9%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.559th
  Defense3.2122nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%12th
  Defense19.0%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%21st
  Defense13.6%22nd

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Bowling Green allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   TAR
2. L
   NEB
3. L
   ISU
4. L
   USF
5. W
   M-OH
6. W
   SAC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Bowling Green.

Players, 2026

1. Jay KastantinQB111 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 94th of 192 QBs
   0.21WAR0.06 to 0.34
2. Austyn DendyRB48 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 73rd of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
3. Winn SharpWR18 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
4. Brennan RidleyWR18 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Eli Jacon-DuffyTE14 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 47th of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
6. Jeremiah ScobyTE20 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 49th of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
7. Nakai AmachreeRB9 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 256th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Bowling Green's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  568568111th of 138Roster talent: 568, 111th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  149149105th of 138Recruiting: 149, 105th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -6%-6%135th of 136Returning production: -6%, 135th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.9−17.9127th of 138SP+ rating so far: −17.9, 127th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Bowling Green's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs USFQ4 0:37 4th & 16 at USF 30, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
2. vs TARQ2 13:23 4th & 9 at TAR 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
3. at M-OHQ1 0:34 4th & 2 at BGSU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs TARQ1 7:20 4th & 3 at BGSU 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs USFQ1 10:06 4th & 3 at USF 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at ISUQ3 1:18 4th & 8 at ISU 38, down 38Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. vs SACQ4 7:28 4th & 6 at SAC 47, up 35Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at ISUQ4 0:41 4th & 1 at BGSU 34, down 48Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

61st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Bowling Green's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TAR
2. L

   NEB
3. L

   ISU
4. L

   USF
5. W

   M-OH
6. W

   SAC

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Bowling Green's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.22
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• TARL 13-20 vs TAR63% → 12%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• NEBL 7-56 at NEB3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• ISUL 7-55 at ISU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• USFL 6-14 vs USF13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• M-OHW 24-20 at M-OH22% → 77%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• SACW 38-10 vs SAC75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27

Points of win probability, from Bowling Green's side.

Closest call

BGSU 48-27 MD (2015) - Bowling Green dropped to a 2.1% win probability before pulling it out.