Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0323rd
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%36th
  Defense51.2%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2153rd
  Defense+1.1374th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0222nd
  Defense+0.1812th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0933rd
  Defense+0.3112th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%21st
  Defense53.4%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.2%76th
  Defense45.5%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7836th
  Defense3.472nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.6%16th
  Defense15.9%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%14th
  Defense14.6%27th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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

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

Players, 2017

1. Jarret DoegeQB187 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 90th of 226 QBs
   0.85WAR0.48 to 1.23
2. Josh ClevelandRB137 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 62nd of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.23 to 0.52
3. Andrew ClairRB112 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 73rd of 352 RBs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.45
4. James MorganQB138 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 164th of 226 QBs
   0.27WAR0.03 to 0.47
5. Joseph DavidsonP43 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 8th of 95 punters
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
6. Scott MillerWR63 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 69th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
7. Teo ReddingWR53 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 141st of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
8. Jake SuderPK14 plays · +0.372 pts/play · 63rd of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  36236298th of 130Roster talent: 362, 98th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118102nd of 130Recruiting: 118, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%23rd of 128Returning production: 81%, 23rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.0−10.0101st of 128SP+ rating: −10.0, 101st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 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 M-OHQ4 3:25 4th & 3 at M-OH 23, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs AKRQ4 14:53 4th & 3 at BGSU 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at MTSUQ2 6:15 4th & 2 at MTSU 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs OHIOQ2 2:37 4th & 2 at OHIO 15, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs AKRQ1 2:34 4th & 1 at BGSU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at MTSUQ3 5:15 4th & 2 at BGSU 37, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at NUQ2 2:01 4th & 1 at BGSU 30, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs OHIOQ3 3:28 4th & 4 at OHIO 48, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

114th of 130 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

   MSU
2. L

   SDAK
3. L

   NU
4. L

   MTSU
5. L

   AKR
6. W

   M-OH
7. L

   OHIO
8. L

   NIU
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    BUF
11. L

    TOL
12. L

    EMU

What moved it, 2017

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−1.85
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.68

Game by game

• MSUL 10-35 at MSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• SDAKL 27-35 vs SDAK64% → 5%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• NUL 7-49 at NU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• MTSUL 13-24 at MTSU30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• AKRL 23-34 vs AKR45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• M-OHW 37-29 at M-OH13% → 97%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• OHIOL 30-48 vs OHIO29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• NIUL 17-48 vs NIU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25
• KENTW 44-16 at KENT53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• BUFL 28-38 at BUF35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• TOLL 37-66 vs TOL13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19
• EMUL 31-34 at EMU17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1

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.