Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1773rd
  Defense+0.1435th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%76th
  Defense44.9%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2258th
  Defense+1.2245th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense+0.1424th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1236th
  Defense+0.1455th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%81st
  Defense49.4%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%53rd
  Defense34.2%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4495th
  Defense2.9937th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%83rd
  Defense20.3%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense18.4%80th

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, 2018

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
   VMI
2. L
   MIA
3. W
   NEV
4. L
   FRES
5. W
   BGSU
6. L
   EMU
7. L
   BUF
8. W
   WMU
9. W
   BALL
10. L
    NIU
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    CMU
13. L
    FIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2018

1. Mitchell GuadagniQB168 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 87th of 225 QBs
   0.93WAR0.54 to 1.32
2. Eli PetersQB184 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 135th of 225 QBs
   0.54WAR0.25 to 0.85
3. Bryant KobackRB100 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 84th of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.32 to 0.50
4. Shakif SeymourRB105 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 118th of 351 RBs
   0.35WAR0.26 to 0.43
5. Art ThompkinsRB81 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 187th of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.18 to 0.29
6. Diontae JohnsonWR74 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 32nd of 434 WRs
   0.22WAR0.09 to 0.34
7. Cody ThompsonWR55 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 70th of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
8. Jameson VestPK17 plays · +0.403 pts/play · 35th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.16

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46446480th of 130Roster talent: 464, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814877th of 130Recruiting: 148, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%85th of 129Returning production: 53%, 85th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.0+2.066th of 130SP+ rating: +2.0, 66th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.05 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 EMUQ4 0:20 4th & 10 at EMU 10, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
2. at EMUQ2 4:51 4th & 20 at EMU 39, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. at EMUQ4 15:00 4th & 14 at EMU 18, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at NIUQ2 1:47 4th & 2 at TOL 38, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs MIAQ4 14:19 4th & 2 at MIA 29, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs BUFQ4 7:34 4th & 4 at TOL 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs BUFQ1 2:55 4th & 1 at TOL 31, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at KENTQ2 11:02 4th & 5 at KENT 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

112th 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

   VMI
2. L

   MIA
3. W

   NEV
4. L

   FRES
5. W

   BGSU
6. L

   EMU
7. L

   BUF
8. W

   WMU
9. W

   BALL
10. L

    NIU
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    CMU
13. L

    FIU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.39
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• VMIW 66-3 vs VMI100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MIAL 24-49 vs MIA17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• NEVW 63-44 vs NEV74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• FRESL 27-49 at FRES22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• BGSUW 52-36 vs BGSU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +14
• EMUL 26-28 at EMU58% → 19%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• BUFL 17-31 vs BUF58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• WMUW 51-24 at WMU33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +63, Clock +1
• BALLW 45-13 vs BALL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16
• NIUL 15-38 at NIU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• KENTW 56-34 at KENT76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• CMUW 51-13 vs CMU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• FIUL 32-35 vs FIU69% → 14%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −42, 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.