Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1245th
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%42nd
  Defense47.1%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2155th
  Defense+1.2722nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1163rd
  Defense+0.208th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1536th
  Defense+0.2623rd
• 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%36th
  Defense52.5%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%41st
  Defense34.6%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2486th
  Defense3.1319th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%83rd
  Defense17.6%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.9%26th
  Defense19.6%46th

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, 2019

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
   UK
2. W
   MUR
3. W
   CSU
4. W
   BYU
5. W
   WMU
6. L
   BGSU
7. L
   BALL
8. W
   EMU
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    NIU
11. L
    BUF
12. L
    CMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2019

1. Mitchell GuadagniQB153 plays · +0.341 pts/play · 83rd of 228 QBs
   0.98WAR0.69 to 1.27
2. Bryant KobackRB170 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 27th of 349 RBs
   0.66WAR0.47 to 0.83
3. Shakif SeymourRB158 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 47th of 349 RBs
   0.54WAR0.40 to 0.65
4. Eli PetersQB109 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 169th of 228 QBs
   0.24WAR0.05 to 0.46
5. Bryce MitchellWR52 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 137th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Danzel McKinley-LewisWR48 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 192nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Carter BradleyQB56 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 210th of 228 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.17
8. Desmond PhillipsWR39 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 388th of 439 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45145191st of 130Roster talent: 451, 91st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15415476th of 130Recruiting: 154, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%74th of 130Returning production: 56%, 74th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.7−13.7114th of 130SP+ rating: −13.7, 114th 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 BYUQ4 10:42 4th & 4 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at CSUQ2 1:00 4th & 1 at CSU 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs EMUQ2 2:27 4th & 1 at TOL 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs EMUQ2 9:50 4th & 2 at EMU 9, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at UKQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at TOL 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs WMUQ3 5:57 4th & 2 at TOL 18, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at BALLQ2 14:47 4th & 2 at TOL 18, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at BGSUQ2 7:48 4th & 2 at TOL 10, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

87th 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. L

   UK
2. W

   MUR
3. W

   CSU
4. W

   BYU
5. W

   WMU
6. L

   BGSU
7. L

   BALL
8. W

   EMU
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    NIU
11. L

    BUF
12. L

    CMU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.20
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.10
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• UKL 24-38 at UK25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• MURW 45-0 vs MUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• CSUW 41-35 at CSU71% → 82%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −3
• BYUW 28-21 vs BYU45% → 88%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −2
• WMUW 31-24 vs WMU54% → 96%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• BGSUL 7-20 at BGSU96% → 2%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• BALLL 14-52 at BALL45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −44
• EMUW 37-34 vs EMU59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts −14
• KENTW 35-33 vs KENT60% → 88%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• NIUL 28-31 vs NIU56% → 34%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +5
• BUFL 30-49 at BUF29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• CMUL 7-49 at CMU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23

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.