Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.039th
  Defense+0.1260th
• 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.
  Offense36.7%9th
  Defense42.8%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2542nd
  Defense+1.1691st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0316th
  Defense+0.1628th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0916th
  Defense+0.1377th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%13th
  Defense51.6%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%6th
  Defense21.9%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.632nd
  Defense3.3913th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%13th
  Defense12.7%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%9th
  Defense15.6%29th

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, 2021

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
   TENN
2. L
   USA
3. W
   MUR
4. W
   MINN
5. L
   KENT
6. L
   AKR
7. L
   NIU
8. L
   EMU
9. W
   BUF
10. L
    TOL
11. L
    M-OH
12. W
    OHIO

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

Players, 2021

1. Matt McDonaldQB326 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 92nd of 219 QBs
   1.00WAR0.42 to 1.59
2. Terion StewartRB48 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 229th of 387 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
3. Austin OsborneWR56 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 155th of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
4. Tyrone BrodenWR41 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 166th of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
5. Matt NaranjoP43 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 52nd of 101 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
6. Nate NeedhamPK14 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 53rd of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Ta'Ron KeithRB21 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 313th of 387 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Jamal JohnsonRB11 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 326th of 387 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  381381110th of 130Roster talent: 381, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  137137100th of 130Recruiting: 137, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%121st of 128Returning production: 33%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.4−12.4111th of 130SP+ rating: −12.4, 111th 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, 2021

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 0.05 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 OHIOQ3 7:19 4th & 11 at OHIO 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
2. at BUFQ4 4:47 4th & 1 at BGSU 41, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs EMUQ1 1:20 4th & 6 at EMU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at NIUQ2 11:41 4th & 2 at BGSU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs OHIOQ2 1:58 4th & 4 at OHIO 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at BUFQ1 4:52 4th & 7 at BUF 17, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at NIUQ2 0:32 4th & 7 at NIU 39, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at KENTQ4 0:37 4th & 13 at BGSU 24, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

36th 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

   TENN
2. L

   USA
3. W

   MUR
4. W

   MINN
5. L

   KENT
6. L

   AKR
7. L

   NIU
8. L

   EMU
9. W

   BUF
10. L

    TOL
11. L

    M-OH
12. W

    OHIO

What moved it, 2021

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+0.05
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.58

Game by game

• TENNL 6-38 at TENN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• USAL 19-22 vs USA16% → 74%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position −2
• MURW 27-10 vs MUR45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• MINNW 14-10 at MINN3% → 83%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• KENTL 20-27 at KENT12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• AKRL 20-35 vs AKR82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• NIUL 26-34 at NIU26% → 6%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• EMUL 24-55 vs EMU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40
• BUFW 56-44 at BUF18% → 99%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +67, Clock +2
• TOLL 17-49 vs TOL21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position +1
• M-OHL 7-34 at M-OH10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• OHIOW 21-10 vs OHIO28% → 96%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +45, Possession & field position −3

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.