Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.0384th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%42nd
  Defense41.5%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3587th
  Defense+1.2362nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1465th
  Defense+0.1425th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2145th
  Defense+0.1382nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%45th
  Defense48.2%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%52nd
  Defense28.4%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0842nd
  Defense3.2622nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%36th
  Defense10.0%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.4%14th
  Defense17.8%72nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   LIB
2. W
   EIU
3. L
   MICH
4. L
   OHIO
5. W
   GT
6. L
   M-OH
7. W
   BUF
8. W
   AKR
9. W
   BALL
10. W
    KENT
11. L
    TOL
12. W
    WMU
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2023

1. Connor BazelakQB232 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 122nd of 250 QBs
   0.55WAR0.10 to 1.03
2. Camden OrthQB99 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 161st of 250 QBs
   0.29WAR0.02 to 0.56
3. Ta'Ron KeithRB84 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 96th of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.35
4. Terion StewartRB94 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 110th of 383 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.33
5. Harold Fannin Jr.TE52 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 8th of 212 TEs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.32
6. Odieu HiliareWR48 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 140th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR−0.01 to 0.26
7. Jaison PattersonRB18 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 321st of 383 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Sami SirP6 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 101st of 103 punters
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  398398113th of 130Roster talent: 398, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127105th of 130Recruiting: 127, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%108th of 128Returning production: 30%, 108th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.8−7.892nd of 130SP+ rating: −7.8, 92nd 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.17 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 BUFQ4 9:54 4th & 1 at BUF 24, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.0 pts
2. vs TOLQ4 10:52 4th & 2 at BGSU 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
3. at BUFQ4 6:33 4th & 3 at BUF 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.5 pts
4. vs BALLQ4 3:14 4th & 4 at BALL 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.5 pts
5. vs BALLQ4 1:20 4th & 7 at BALL 26, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal2.4 pts
6. vs TOLQ4 0:44 4th & 17 at BGSU 24, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.3 pts
7. vs TOLQ3 3:03 4th & 9 at TOL 32, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts
8. at GTQ4 4:01 4th & 15 at GT 35, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

20th of 133 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

   LIB
2. W

   EIU
3. L

   MICH
4. L

   OHIO
5. W

   GT
6. L

   M-OH
7. W

   BUF
8. W

   AKR
9. W

   BALL
10. W

    KENT
11. L

    TOL
12. W

    WMU
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2023

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+1.25
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• LIBL 24-34 at LIB25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock +1
• EIUW 38-15 vs EIU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• MICHL 6-31 at MICH1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• OHIOL 7-38 vs OHIO15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• GTW 38-27 at GT7% → 97%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• M-OHL 0-27 at M-OH24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• BUFW 24-14 at BUF35% → 98%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• AKRW 41-14 vs AKR64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36
• BALLW 24-21 vs BALL65% → 81%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −3
• KENTW 49-19 at KENT77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• TOLL 31-32 vs TOL20% → 5%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• WMUW 34-10 at WMU52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• MINNL 24-30 vs MINN38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2

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.