Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2479th
  Defense+0.0487th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%22nd
  Defense36.4%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.5499th
  Defense+1.3131st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3298th
  Defense+0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1836th
  Defense+0.1378th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%50th
  Defense41.6%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%5th
  Defense26.9%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5092nd
  Defense3.0842nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.2%84th
  Defense16.7%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%41st
  Defense19.8%90th

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, 2021

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
   NORF
2. L
   ND
3. L
   CSU
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   MASS
6. L
   NIU
7. L
   CMU
8. W
   WMU
9. L
   EMU
10. W
    BGSU
11. W
    OHIO
12. W
    AKR
13. L
    MTSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2021

1. Dequan FinnQB277 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 85th of 219 QBs
   1.14WAR0.50 to 1.75
2. Bryant KobackRB190 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 35th of 387 RBs
   0.68WAR0.51 to 0.86
3. Carter BradleyQB109 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 159th of 219 QBs
   0.34WAR0.10 to 0.60
4. Isaiah WinsteadWR53 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Devin MaddoxWR45 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 191st of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Micah KellyRB33 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 279th of 387 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Thomas CluckeyPK21 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 39th of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Matt LandersWR22 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 282nd of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46546586th of 130Roster talent: 465, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616669th of 130Recruiting: 166, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%70th of 128Returning production: 71%, 70th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.9+6.956th of 130SP+ rating: +6.9, 56th 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, 2021

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 0.09 of the 0.16 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 MTSUQ4 7:09 4th & 2 at TOL 27, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs WMUQ3 8:08 4th & 14 at WMU 34, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
3. at CMUQ4 11:58 4th & 2 at CMU 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at BALLQ4 4:51 4th & 4 at BALL 4, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at BALLQ4 0:04 4th & 3 at BALL 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs MTSUQ3 5:54 4th & 3 at MTSU 25, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at CMUQ4 4:34 4th & 7 at CMU 32, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at OHIOQ4 11:42 4th & 2 at TOL 49, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

119th 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

   NORF
2. L

   ND
3. L

   CSU
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   MASS
6. L

   NIU
7. L

   CMU
8. W

   WMU
9. L

   EMU
10. W

    BGSU
11. W

    OHIO
12. W

    AKR
13. L

    MTSU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.45
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.07

Game by game

• NORFW 49-10 vs NORF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NDL 29-32 at ND14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• CSUL 6-22 vs CSU84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −65, Clock −3
• BALLW 22-12 at BALL63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• MASSW 45-7 at MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• NIUL 20-22 vs NIU83% → 14%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• CMUL 23-26 at CMU63% → 52%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +11, Clock +3
• WMUW 34-15 vs WMU45% → 98%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position +1
• EMUL 49-52 vs EMU73% → 14%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• BGSUW 49-17 at BGSU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −1
• OHIOW 35-23 at OHIO68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• AKRW 49-14 vs AKR96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MTSUL 24-31 vs MTSU80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −56, 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.