Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.072nd
  Defense+0.272nd
• 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.
  Offense39.0%16th
  Defense46.7%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1011th
  Defense+1.339th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0025th
  Defense+0.225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.153rd
  Defense+0.356th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%29th
  Defense52.2%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.2%4th
  Defense33.9%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8140th
  Defense3.0827th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%43rd
  Defense18.3%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%41st
  Defense16.8%14th

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, 2019

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. W
   MORG
2. L
   KSU
3. L
   LT
4. L
   KENT
5. L
   ND
6. W
   TOL
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   WMU
9. W
   AKR
10. L
    M-OH
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    BUF

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

Players, 2019

1. Grant LoyQB163 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 117th of 228 QBs
   0.58WAR0.30 to 0.85
2. Darius WadeQB76 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 186th of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
3. Davon JonesRB54 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 225th of 349 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.20
4. Bryson DenleyRB59 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 230th of 349 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Andrew ClairRB43 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 251st of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
6. Quintin MorrisTE48 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 19th of 207 TEs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.16
7. RB Marlow IIIWR27 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Matt NaranjoP33 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 55th of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  315315122nd of 130Roster talent: 315, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127103rd of 130Recruiting: 127, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%115th of 130Returning production: 32%, 115th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −27.5−27.5128th of 130SP+ rating: −27.5, 128th 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, 2019

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 0.03 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. vs TOLQ4 15:00 4th & 9 at TOL 35, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at KENTQ2 12:13 4th & 1 at BGSU 37, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs TOLQ3 2:44 4th & 4 at TOL 9, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs AKRQ3 15:00 4th & 9 at AKR 22, up 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs CMUQ2 8:04 4th & 3 at BGSU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs AKRQ2 11:06 4th & 7 at AKR 37, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs AKRQ1 10:19 4th & 23 at BGSU 42, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs AKRQ3 4:03 4th & 5 at BGSU 36, up 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

48th 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. W

   MORG
2. L

   KSU
3. L

   LT
4. L

   KENT
5. L

   ND
6. W

   TOL
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   WMU
9. W

   AKR
10. L

    M-OH
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2019

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−0.29
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• MORGW 46-3 vs MORG94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• KSUL 0-52 at KSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• LTL 7-35 vs LT17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• KENTL 20-62 at KENT18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• NDL 0-52 at ND0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• TOLW 20-7 vs TOL4% → 98%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +94: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1
• CMUL 20-38 vs CMU23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −1
• WMUL 10-49 at WMU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• AKRW 35-6 vs AKR54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +44
• M-OHL 3-44 at M-OH13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• OHIOL 24-66 vs OHIO9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• BUFL 7-49 at BUF4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7

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.