Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1456th
  Defense+0.0670th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%50th
  Defense37.6%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2753rd
  Defense+1.3228th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1051st
  Defense+0.1426th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1854th
  Defense+0.0384th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%44th
  Defense44.6%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%51st
  Defense24.0%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0145th
  Defense3.2817th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.3%8th
  Defense15.0%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%26th
  Defense15.7%43rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   FOR
2. L
   PSU
3. L
   TA&M
4. L
   ODU
5. W
   AKR
6. L
   NIU
7. W
   KENT
8. W
   TOL
9. W
   CMU
10. W
    WMU
11. W
    BALL
12. L
    M-OH
13. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2024

1. Connor BazelakQB389 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 73rd of 232 QBs
   1.28WAR0.65 to 1.90
2. Harold Fannin Jr.TE115 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 1st of 221 TEs
   0.50WAR0.25 to 0.77
3. Terion StewartRB126 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 102nd of 373 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.36
4. Jaison PattersonRB84 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 152nd of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.25
5. Malcolm Johnson Jr.WR49 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 169th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.03 to 0.20
6. Zach LongPK17 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 60th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. John HendersonP45 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 53rd of 106 punters
   0.06WAR−0.04 to 0.14
8. Finn HoganWR18 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 220th of 452 WRs
   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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  485485115th of 131Roster talent: 485, 115th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126107th of 131Recruiting: 126, 107th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%26th of 130Returning production: 66%, 26th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.8−1.875th of 131SP+ rating: −1.8, 75th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 TOLQ4 14:58 4th & 1 at TOL 17, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs ODUQ4 8:59 4th & 5 at ODU 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs NIUQ3 13:56 4th & 14 at BGSU 23, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
4. vs ARSTQ3 3:14 4th & 6 at BGSU 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
5. vs FORQ3 3:01 4th & 25 at BGSU 48, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
6. at CMUQ3 5:35 4th & 2 at CMU 8, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at PSUQ4 0:47 4th & 4 at PSU 24, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs KENTQ2 6:42 4th & 1 at BGSU 19, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

107th of 134 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

   FOR
2. L

   PSU
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   ODU
5. W

   AKR
6. L

   NIU
7. W

   KENT
8. W

   TOL
9. W

   CMU
10. W

    WMU
11. W

    BALL
12. L

    M-OH
13. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2024

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−0.32
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.66

Game by game

• FORW 41-17 vs FOR87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• PSUL 27-34 at PSU2% → 3%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −6
• TA&ML 20-26 at TA&M8% → 3%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −14
• ODUL 27-30 vs ODU80% → 16%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• AKRW 27-20 at AKR88% → 90%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• NIUL 7-17 vs NIU58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• KENTW 27-6 vs KENT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts −1
• TOLW 41-26 at TOL45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• CMUW 23-13 at CMU85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• WMUW 31-13 vs WMU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• BALLW 38-13 at BALL81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• M-OHL 12-28 vs M-OH58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• ARSTL 31-38 vs ARST74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −71: 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.