Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0728th
  Defense+0.275th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%22nd
  Defense49.4%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2463rd
  Defense+1.2342nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.086th
  Defense+0.342nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2159th
  Defense+0.1649th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.8%23rd
  Defense55.9%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.1%30th
  Defense33.5%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5313th
  Defense3.631st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.4%11th
  Defense12.6%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%13th
  Defense10.7%3rd

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, 2018

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
   ORE
2. L
   MD
3. W
   EKU
4. L
   M-OH
5. L
   GT
6. L
   TOL
7. L
   WMU
8. L
   OHIO
9. L
   KENT
10. W
    CMU
11. W
    AKR
12. L
    BUF

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

Players, 2018

1. Jarret DoegeQB270 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 70th of 225 QBs
   1.21WAR0.74 to 1.69
2. Andrew ClairRB89 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 144th of 351 RBs
   0.30WAR0.22 to 0.38
3. Rico FryeRB62 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 226th of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
4. Scott MillerWR69 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 104th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.26
5. Quintin MorrisTE37 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 11th of 204 TEs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
6. Dorian HendrixTE10 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
7. Ra'veion HargroveRB10 plays · +0.007 pts/play · 308th of 351 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01
8. Bryson DenleyRB11 plays · −0.000 pts/play · 308th of 351 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  375375104th of 130Roster talent: 375, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12812896th of 130Recruiting: 128, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%77th of 129Returning production: 59%, 77th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.0−22.0126th of 130SP+ rating: −22.0, 126th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 CMUQ3 5:15 4th & 3 at CMU 3, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs KENTQ4 8:40 4th & 7 at KENT 23, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. vs KENTQ4 11:09 4th & 4 at BGSU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at CMUQ2 15:00 4th & 16 at CMU 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at CMUQ4 0:08 4th & 21 at CMU 42, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs EKUQ2 11:22 4th & 4 at BGSU 19, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at OHIOQ3 11:13 4th & 9 at OHIO 38, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at AKRQ2 14:16 4th & 3 at BGSU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

67th 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

   ORE
2. L

   MD
3. W

   EKU
4. L

   M-OH
5. L

   GT
6. L

   TOL
7. L

   WMU
8. L

   OHIO
9. L

   KENT
10. W

    CMU
11. W

    AKR
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2018

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−0.70
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.56

Game by game

• OREL 24-58 at ORE2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• MDL 14-45 vs MD15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• EKUW 42-35 vs EKU85% → 87%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHL 23-38 vs M-OH34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• GTL 17-63 at GT4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TOLL 36-52 at TOL9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −14
• WMUL 35-42 vs WMU15% → 11%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• OHIOL 14-49 at OHIO14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• KENTL 28-35 vs KENT53% → 5%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• CMUW 24-13 at CMU36% → 97%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• AKRW 21-6 at AKR38% → 98%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +57, Clock +1
• BUFL 14-44 vs BUF16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −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.