Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2391st
  Defense+0.1146th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%88th
  Defense41.3%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2260th
  Defense+1.2531st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0967th
  Defense+0.1910th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4198th
  Defense+0.0479th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%74th
  Defense47.7%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.2%95th
  Defense28.3%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1282nd
  Defense3.0036th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%49th
  Defense18.3%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.7%93rd
  Defense14.9%31st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ELON
2. W
   NEV
3. W
   TLSA
4. L
   MIA
5. W
   EMU
6. W
   CMU
7. W
   AKR
8. W
   BALL
9. W
   NIU
10. L
    OHIO
11. W
    BGSU
12. W
    WMU
13. W
    AKR
14. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2017

1. Logan WoodsideQB357 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 13th of 226 QBs
   2.18WAR1.51 to 2.83
2. Terry SwansonRB219 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 26th of 352 RBs
   0.52WAR0.33 to 0.70
3. Diontae JohnsonWR79 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 28th of 426 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
4. Shakif SeymourRB83 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 150th of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
5. Art ThompkinsRB86 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 157th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
6. Jon'Vea JohnsonWR53 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 72nd of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Jameson VestPK19 plays · +0.400 pts/play · 24th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
8. Cody ThompsonWR29 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 184th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  36636695th of 130Roster talent: 366, 95th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13313384th of 130Recruiting: 133, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%49th of 128Returning production: 68%, 49th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.6+6.645th of 128SP+ rating: +6.6, 45th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 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. vs EMUQ4 2:58 4th & 3 at EMU 3, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at MIAQ4 2:30 4th & 8 at TOL 37, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs NIUQ3 0:36 4th & 1 at TOL 26, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at CMUQ2 12:40 4th & 3 at CMU 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at OHIOQ2 7:16 4th & 2 at TOL 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs EMUQ3 6:01 4th & 14 at EMU 35, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs TLSAQ2 15:00 4th & 5 at TLSA 37, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MIAQ3 12:51 4th & 5 at MIA 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

55th of 130 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. W

   ELON
2. W

   NEV
3. W

   TLSA
4. L

   MIA
5. W

   EMU
6. W

   CMU
7. W

   AKR
8. W

   BALL
9. W

   NIU
10. L

    OHIO
11. W

    BGSU
12. W

    WMU
13. W

    AKR
14. L

    APP

What moved it, 2017

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+0.77
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.70

Game by game

• ELONW 47-13 vs ELON99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NEVW 37-24 at NEV81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• TLSAW 54-51 vs TLSA74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• MIAL 30-52 at MIA18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• EMUW 20-15 vs EMU82% → 93%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −1
• CMUW 30-10 at CMU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• AKRW 48-21 vs AKR87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• BALLW 58-17 at BALL95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• NIUW 27-17 vs NIU73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• OHIOL 10-38 at OHIO62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts +1
• BGSUW 66-37 at BGSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• WMUW 37-10 vs WMU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• AKRW 45-28 vs AKR92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• APPL 0-34 vs APP67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −63, 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.