Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2280th
  Defense+0.0290th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%76th
  Defense38.7%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2964th
  Defense+1.1684th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1468th
  Defense+0.0657th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3986th
  Defense+0.0989th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%83rd
  Defense45.2%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.0%55th
  Defense25.7%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3586th
  Defense3.1539th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%58th
  Defense15.9%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%87th
  Defense18.5%81st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ILL
2. W
   TXSO
3. W
   SJSU
4. W
   WMU
5. W
   NIU
6. W
   MASS
7. W
   BALL
8. W
   M-OH
9. W
   BUF
10. W
    EMU
11. W
    BGSU
12. W
    CMU
13. L
    M-OH
14. L
    WYO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2023

1. Dequan FinnQB385 plays · +0.336 pts/play · 4th of 250 QBs
   2.42WAR1.69 to 3.24
2. Peny BooneRB178 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 23rd of 383 RBs
   0.45WAR0.25 to 0.62
3. Jerjuan NewtonWR64 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 43rd of 457 WRs
   0.24WAR0.05 to 0.38
4. Anthony TorresTE29 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 12th of 212 TEs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.27
5. Tucker GleasonQB53 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 189th of 250 QBs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.32
6. Jacquez StuartRB102 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 147th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
7. Luke PawlakPK13 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 68th of 113 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Emilio DuranP52 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 66th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49849888th of 130Roster talent: 498, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814882nd of 130Recruiting: 148, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%14th of 128Returning production: 79%, 14th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.7+3.752nd of 130SP+ rating: +3.7, 52nd 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, 2023

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 NIUQ4 0:44 4th & 6 at NIU 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs M-OHQ4 11:33 4th & 2 at TOL 42, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at CMUQ2 0:03 4th & 1 at CMU 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs SJSUQ4 11:13 4th & 4 at SJSU 25, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs WMUQ3 13:59 4th & 2 at TOL 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at ILLQ2 4:37 4th & 3 at ILL 6, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at WYOQ1 2:14 4th & 15 at WYO 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at WYOQ3 3:50 4th & 9 at WYO 33, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

48th of 133 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

   ILL
2. W

   TXSO
3. W

   SJSU
4. W

   WMU
5. W

   NIU
6. W

   MASS
7. W

   BALL
8. W

   M-OH
9. W

   BUF
10. W

    EMU
11. W

    BGSU
12. W

    CMU
13. L

    M-OH
14. L

    WYO

What moved it, 2023

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+1.29
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.07

Game by game

• ILLL 28-30 at ILL28% → 13%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −2
• TXSOW 71-3 vs TXSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SJSUW 21-17 vs SJSU75% → 96%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• WMUW 49-31 vs WMU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• NIUW 35-33 vs NIU83% → 86%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +2
• MASSW 41-24 at MASS91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• BALLW 13-6 at BALL90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• M-OHW 21-17 at M-OH57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• BUFW 31-13 vs BUF84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −1
• EMUW 49-23 vs EMU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• BGSUW 32-31 at BGSU80% → 95%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• CMUW 32-17 at CMU79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• M-OHL 14-23 vs M-OH71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• WYOL 15-16 at WYO41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −31, 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.