Bowling Green

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.065th
  Defense+0.0855th
• 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.
  Offense35.6%6th
  Defense40.6%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2133rd
  Defense+1.2737th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0410th
  Defense0.0073rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.036th
  Defense+0.1942nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.2%5th
  Defense45.2%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.7%11th
  Defense31.0%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8843rd
  Defense2.7471st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%52nd
  Defense24.7%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%39th
  Defense19.0%92nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   LAF
2. L
   CIN
3. W
   LIB
4. L
   LOU
5. L
   OHIO
6. W
   TOL
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   KENT
9. L
   BUF
10. L
    EMU
11. L
    AKR
12. W
    MASS

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

Players, 2025

1. Hunter NajmQB68 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 165th of 231 QBs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.31
2. Austyn DendyRB97 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 110th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
3. Drew PyneQB107 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 185th of 231 QBs
   0.14WAR−0.09 to 0.35
4. Cameron PettawayRB59 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 212th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
5. Baron MayQB35 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 190th of 231 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Chris McMillianRB61 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 226th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Jyrin JohnsonTE45 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 28th of 213 TEs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.18
8. Jackson KleatherPK15 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 76th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  527527107th of 134Roster talent: 527, 107th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131108th of 134Recruiting: 131, 108th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%127th of 132Returning production: 8%, 127th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.6−12.6111th of 134SP+ rating: −12.6, 111th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.10 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 EMUQ4 13:31 4th & 1 at BGSU 26, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
2. at KENTQ4 14:56 4th & 2 at KENT 25, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
3. vs AKRQ2 5:25 4th & 1 at BGSU 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
4. at MASSQ3 7:25 4th & 2 at MASS 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
5. vs LIBQ2 4:40 4th & 1 at BGSU 31, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. at EMUQ3 9:58 4th & 2 at BGSU 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
7. at EMUQ3 3:12 4th & 5 at EMU 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
8. vs TOLQ3 12:43 4th & 1 at BGSU 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

109th of 136 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

   LAF
2. L

   CIN
3. W

   LIB
4. L

   LOU
5. L

   OHIO
6. W

   TOL
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   KENT
9. L

   BUF
10. L

    EMU
11. L

    AKR
12. W

    MASS

What moved it, 2025

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−1.42
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.05
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• LAFW 26-7 vs LAF93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• CINL 20-34 at CIN7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• LIBW 23-13 vs LIB32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• LOUL 17-40 at LOU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• OHIOL 20-35 at OHIO26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Clock +1
• TOLW 28-23 vs TOL17% → 95%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +4
• CMUL 6-27 vs CMU59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −2
• KENTL 21-24 at KENT68% → 15%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• BUFL 3-28 vs BUF48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −54, Possession & field position +1
• EMUL 21-27 at EMU39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• AKRL 16-19 vs AKR56% → 11%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• MASSW 45-14 at MASS84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21

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.