Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1569th
  Defense−0.0390th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%57th
  Defense39.8%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2364th
  Defense+1.1276th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1168th
  Defense−0.1094th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2368th
  Defense+0.0576th
• 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%44th
  Defense43.7%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%76th
  Defense33.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7837th
  Defense2.2896th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%35th
  Defense27.8%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.4%72nd

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, 2015

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2015

1. Phillip ElyQB346 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 57th of 205 QBs
   1.51WAR0.96 to 2.10
2. Kareem HuntRB153 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 17th of 333 RBs
   0.52WAR0.39 to 0.67
3. Terry SwansonRB120 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 52nd of 333 RBs
   0.36WAR0.23 to 0.45
4. Alonzo RussellWR60 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 109th of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.27
5. Cody ThompsonWR42 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 125th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
6. Jameson VestPK19 plays · +0.360 pts/play · 48th of 115 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Damion Jones-MooreRB47 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 222nd of 333 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Corey JonesWR69 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 289th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.17

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42942980th of 128Roster talent: 429, 80th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12712785th of 128Recruiting: 127, 85th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%18th of 127Returning production: 87%, 18th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.750th of 128SP+ rating: +7.7, 50th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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. vs NIUQ4 13:45 4th & 1 at NIU 21, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. vs TEMQ2 2:06 4th & 1 at TEM 35, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at BALLQ2 3:15 4th & 1 at BALL 13, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs ARSTQ2 0:18 4th & 22 at ARST 33, up 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. at CMUQ3 4:43 4th & 4 at CMU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs ISUQ2 7:17 4th & 2 at ISU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at BGSUQ1 3:10 4th & 2 at BGSU 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs NIUQ3 13:11 4th & 2 at TOL 37, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

5th 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 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   ARK
2. W

   ISU
3. W

   ARST
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   EMU
7. W

   MASS
8. L

   NIU
9. W

   CMU
10. W

    BGSU
11. L

    WMU
12. W

    TEM

What moved it, 2015

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+2.65
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• ARKW 16-12 at ARK8% → 76%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −3
• ISUW 30-23 vs ISU67% → 91%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −14
• ARSTW 37-7 vs ARST73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• BALLW 24-10 at BALL77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• KENTW 38-7 vs KENT86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• EMUW 63-20 vs EMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MASSW 51-35 at MASS74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• NIUL 27-32 vs NIU71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• CMUW 28-23 at CMU68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• BGSUW 44-28 at BGSU26% → 99%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +65, Clock +3
• TEMW 32-17 vs TEM51% → 99%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +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.