Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.026th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%39th
  Defense44.9%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.067th
  Defense+1.2719th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1362nd
  Defense+0.1232nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.171st
  Defense+0.2717th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%46th
  Defense48.3%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%19th
  Defense36.6%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0966th
  Defense3.1122nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%77th
  Defense16.2%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%30th
  Defense13.7%17th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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
   OSU
2. W
   UND
3. L
   MTSU
4. L
   MEM
5. L
   EMU
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   TOL
8. L
   M-OH
9. L
   NIU
10. W
    AKR
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    BUF

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

Players, 2016

1. James MorganQB242 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 106th of 218 QBs
   0.73WAR0.32 to 1.15
2. Fred CoppetRB163 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 34th of 347 RBs
   0.58WAR0.39 to 0.78
3. Donovan WilsonRB85 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 137th of 347 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.35
4. Josh ClevelandRB63 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 157th of 347 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
5. Scott MillerWR69 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 95th of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
6. Ronnie MooreWR48 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 122nd of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Joseph DavidsonP32 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 32nd of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
8. James KnapkeQB56 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 190th of 218 QBs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.18

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39339398th of 128Roster talent: 393, 98th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111110th of 128Recruiting: 111, 110th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%110th of 128Returning production: 39%, 110th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.693rd of 128SP+ rating: −6.6, 93rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.16 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. at AKRQ4 2:23 4th & 3 at AKR 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at AKRQ4 7:55 4th & 8 at AKR 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at AKRQ2 2:35 4th & 4 at AKR 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at AKRQ3 1:07 4th & 2 at BGSU 36, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at OHIOQ3 8:54 4th & 2 at OHIO 2, down 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at OHIOQ4 1:24 4th & 27 at OHIO 37, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs MTSUQ4 3:52 4th & 1 at MTSU 21, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs EMUQ3 7:10 4th & 3 at EMU 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

75th of 128 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   OSU
2. W

   UND
3. L

   MTSU
4. L

   MEM
5. L

   EMU
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   TOL
8. L

   M-OH
9. L

   NIU
10. W

    AKR
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    BUF

What moved it, 2016

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−0.56
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15

Game by game

• OSUL 10-77 at OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UNDW 27-26 vs UND91% → 73%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −18: Scoreboard +6, Clock +1
• MTSUL 21-41 vs MTSU32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• MEML 3-77 at MEM12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• EMUL 25-28 vs EMU64% → 5%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• OHIOL 24-30 at OHIO14% → 5%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• M-OHL 26-40 vs M-OH53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• NIUL 20-45 at NIU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• AKRW 38-28 at AKR21% → 96%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4
• KENTW 42-7 vs KENT41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +55, Possession & field position −3
• BUFW 27-19 vs BUF78% → 91%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −2

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.