Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0635th
  Defense+0.1432nd
• 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.
  Offense39.1%24th
  Defense42.4%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2655th
  Defense+1.3417th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.086th
  Defense+0.1322nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2455th
  Defense+0.2728th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%30th
  Defense46.3%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%22nd
  Defense34.2%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0036th
  Defense3.1734th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%35th
  Defense13.8%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.8%5th
  Defense16.8%59th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UCLA
2. L
   EKU
3. W
   MRSH
4. L
   MSST
5. W
   AKR
6. L
   BUF
7. W
   M-OH
8. W
   CMU
9. W
   WMU
10. L
    KENT
11. W
    TOL
12. L
    OHIO
13. L
    NMSU

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

Players, 2022

1. Matt McDonaldQB333 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 90th of 234 QBs
   0.85WAR0.26 to 1.55
2. Tyrone BrodenWR37 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
3. Odieu HiliareWR52 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 135th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.27
4. Jamal JohnsonRB61 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 250th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Jaison PattersonRB102 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 258th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.19
6. Ta'Ron KeithRB42 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 262nd of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Harold Fannin Jr.TE25 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 67th of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Sami SirP48 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 56th of 102 punters
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  415415107th of 129Roster talent: 415, 107th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130107th of 129Recruiting: 130, 107th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  104%104%1st of 128Returning production: 104%, 1st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.1−18.1120th of 129SP+ rating: −18.1, 120th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.13 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 CMUQ4 12:53 4th & 2 at CMU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs MRSHQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at BGSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at TOLQ4 2:36 4th & 4 at BGSU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs M-OHQ3 4:44 4th & 4 at M-OH 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs KENTQ3 10:38 4th & 10 at BGSU 48, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs BUFQ2 5:27 4th & 1 at BGSU 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs KENTQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at KENT 34, down 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at TOLQ3 10:55 4th & 3 at BGSU 9, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

38th of 131 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

   UCLA
2. L

   EKU
3. W

   MRSH
4. L

   MSST
5. W

   AKR
6. L

   BUF
7. W

   M-OH
8. W

   CMU
9. W

   WMU
10. L

    KENT
11. W

    TOL
12. L

    OHIO
13. L

    NMSU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.48

Game by game

• UCLAL 17-45 at UCLA7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• EKUL 57-59 vs EKU70% → 37%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −4
• MRSHW 34-31 vs MRSH14% → 92%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +36, Clock −4
• MSSTL 14-45 at MSST3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• AKRW 31-28 at AKR80% → 88%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• BUFL 7-38 vs BUF50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• M-OHW 17-13 vs M-OH34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +4
• CMUW 34-18 at CMU34% → 98%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• WMUW 13-9 vs WMU70% → 94%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• KENTL 6-40 vs KENT49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• TOLW 42-35 at TOL20% → 90%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position +2
• OHIOL 14-38 at OHIO45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −44, Possession & field position +1
• NMSUL 19-24 vs NMSU67% → 3%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −56, Clock −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.