Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2476th
  Defense+0.0370th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%47th
  Defense34.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4194th
  Defense+1.3420th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1351st
  Defense+0.0162nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3473rd
  Defense+0.1845th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%60th
  Defense40.1%88th
• 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%28th
  Defense23.3%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2874th
  Defense2.7566th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%85th
  Defense21.2%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%67th
  Defense14.2%29th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Toledo 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
   MSU
2. W
   CCSU
3. W
   TEM
4. W
   SDSU
5. W
   BALL
6. L
   BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2026

1. John Alan RichterQB160 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 17th of 192 QBs
   0.49WAR0.22 to 0.76
2. Connor WalendzakRB69 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 60th of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
3. CJ MillerRB62 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 73rd of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
4. Adjatay DabbsWR35 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. Terrell Crosby Jr.WR24 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Sam LeeTE12 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Jacob NewellTE4 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Toledo'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  556556116th of 138Roster talent: 556, 116th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216281st of 138Recruiting: 162, 81st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%30th of 136Returning production: 66%, 30th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.1−2.182nd of 138SP+ rating so far: −2.1, 82nd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Toledo's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 MSUQ3 2:06 4th & 1 at TOL 17, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at BALLQ2 8:07 4th & 1 at BALL 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs SDSUQ3 9:55 4th & 1 at SDSU 31, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs BUFQ4 11:31 4th & 4 at TOL 27, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs BUFQ2 14:02 4th & 1 at TOL 36, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs BUFQ2 9:15 4th & 4 at BUF 29, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs SDSUQ2 11:12 4th & 3 at TOL 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs BUFQ1 1:15 4th & 1 at TOL 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

83rd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Toledo's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   MSU
2. W

   CCSU
3. W

   TEM
4. W

   SDSU
5. W

   BALL
6. L

   BUF

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Toledo'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+0.60
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• MSUL 20-30 at MSU25% → 75%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −5
• CCSUW 63-10 vs CCSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TEMW 49-48 vs TEM64% → 65%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +1: Timeouts −20, Clock +18
• SDSUW 41-16 vs SDSU52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts −3
• BALLW 39-24 at BALL92% → 95%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −1
• BUFL 8-23 vs BUF90% → 1%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Toledo's side.

Closest call

TEM 48-49 TOL (2026) - Toledo dropped to a 1.4% win probability before pulling it out.