Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2283rd
  Defense+0.0189th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%73rd
  Defense39.3%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3686th
  Defense+1.2452nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0132nd
  Defense−0.1496th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4191st
  Defense+0.1754th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%52nd
  Defense43.3%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense42.1%96th
  Defense30.3%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6725th
  Defense2.6375th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.1%12th
  Defense22.2%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%21st
  Defense17.9%66th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   BGSU
2. L
   WMU
3. W
   EMU
4. L
   BALL
5. W
   NIU
6. W
   CMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2020

1. Bryant KobackRB132 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 51st of 338 RBs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.52
2. Eli PetersQB127 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 94th of 212 QBs
   0.34WAR0.09 to 0.59
3. Carter BradleyQB101 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 153rd of 212 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.05 to 0.29
4. Isaiah WinsteadWR31 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 89th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Danzel McKinley-LewisWR25 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 254th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Bryce MitchellWR17 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 278th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Devin MaddoxWR17 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 302nd of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Shakif SeymourRB10 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 280th of 338 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39239296th of 127Roster talent: 392, 96th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216272nd of 127Recruiting: 162, 72nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%72nd of 127Returning production: 61%, 72nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.6−3.686th of 127SP+ rating: −3.6, 86th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.10 of the 0.13 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 3:13 4th & 12 at NIU 20, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
2. at WMUQ4 3:25 4th & 11 at WMU 15, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.7 pts
3. at NIUQ4 11:31 4th & 3 at NIU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
4. at WMUQ2 6:44 4th & 3 at WMU 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs BALLQ1 4:31 4th & 3 at BALL 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs BALLQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at TOL 46, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs BGSUQ2 13:59 4th & 1 at TOL 33, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs BGSUQ4 14:49 4th & 1 at TOL 48, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

83rd of 127 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

   BGSU
2. L

   WMU
3. W

   EMU
4. L

   BALL
5. W

   NIU
6. W

   CMU

What moved it, 2020

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
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• BGSUW 38-3 vs BGSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• WMUL 38-41 at WMU51% → 11%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −3
• EMUW 45-28 at EMU72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• BALLL 24-27 vs BALL76% → 10%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• NIUW 41-24 at NIU75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• CMUW 24-23 vs CMU78% → 85%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, 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.