Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2891st
  Defense+0.1925th
• 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.
  Offense50.3%94th
  Defense43.1%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1326th
  Defense+1.2628th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2591st
  Defense−0.0390th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3580th
  Defense+0.389th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.8%94th
  Defense48.6%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.4%83rd
  Defense32.1%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4295th
  Defense2.4388th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.2%94th
  Defense21.1%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. W
   UNH
2. L
   MIZ
3. L
   CIN
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   CMU
6. W
   WMU
7. L
   ISU
8. W
   MASS
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    NIU
11. W
    BGSU
12. W
    EMU
13. W
    ARST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2014

1. Logan WoodsideQB259 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 92nd of 199 QBs
   1.16WAR0.71 to 1.55
2. Kareem HuntRB175 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 11th of 350 RBs
   0.59WAR0.45 to 0.76
3. Terry SwansonRB88 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 87th of 350 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. Alonzo RussellWR56 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 114th of 469 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.25
5. Phillip ElyQB36 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 174th of 199 QBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Jeremiah DetmerPK13 plays · +0.406 pts/play · 67th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Damion Jones-MooreRB56 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 219th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Corey JonesWR76 plays · +0.051 pts/play · 275th of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.18

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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 NIUQ3 11:15 4th & 2 at NIU 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs BALLQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at BALL 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at ARSTQ3 13:22 4th & 1 at TOL 34, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs BGSUQ2 1:03 4th & 3 at BGSU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs BGSUQ4 14:53 4th & 3 at BGSU 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NIUQ1 1:05 4th & 3 at NIU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at CINQ3 4:33 4th & 4 at CIN 6, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ISUQ4 0:56 4th & 4 at ISU 4, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

41st of 128 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   UNH
2. L

   MIZ
3. L

   CIN
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   CMU
6. W

   WMU
7. L

   ISU
8. W

   MASS
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    NIU
11. W

    BGSU
12. W

    EMU
13. W

    ARST

What moved it, 2014

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+0.97
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• UNHW 54-20 vs UNH80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• MIZL 24-49 vs MIZ36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• CINL 34-58 at CIN21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• BALLW 34-23 vs BALL77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +1
• CMUW 42-28 vs CMU83% → 98%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• ISUL 30-37 at ISU30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• MASSW 42-35 vs MASS87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 30-20 at KENT80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• NIUL 24-27 at NIU40% → 11%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• BGSUW 27-20 vs BGSU69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• EMUW 52-16 at EMU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• ARSTW 63-44 at ARST55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2

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.