Toledo

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0521st
  Defense+0.0381st
• 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.
  Offense40.8%29th
  Defense39.8%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2438th
  Defense+1.1878th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.123rd
  Defense+0.0753rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2366th
  Defense0.0089th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%38th
  Defense45.5%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%20th
  Defense28.6%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6611th
  Defense3.0148th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%11th
  Defense16.7%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%29th
  Defense18.7%77th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   DUQ
2. W
   MASS
3. W
   MSST
4. L
   WKU
5. W
   M-OH
6. L
   BUF
7. W
   NIU
8. L
   BGSU
9. W
   EMU
10. W
    CMU
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    AKR
13. W
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Toledo.

Players, 2024

1. Tucker GleasonQB381 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 39th of 232 QBs
   1.77WAR1.08 to 2.45
2. Jerjuan NewtonWR65 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 38th of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.05 to 0.37
3. Anthony TorresTE29 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 6th of 221 TEs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
4. Connor WalendzakRB105 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 155th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
5. Jacquez StuartRB69 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 173rd of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
6. Sevaughn ClarkRB50 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 249th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Junior Vandeross IIIWR80 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 209th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.12 to 0.28
8. Willie Shaw IIIRB28 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 286th of 373 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57257287th of 131Roster talent: 572, 87th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15215282nd of 131Recruiting: 152, 82nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%66th of 130Returning production: 46%, 66th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.5−2.578th of 131SP+ rating: −2.5, 78th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.21 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 AKRQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at AKR 11, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it4.4 pts
2. at NIUQ3 2:22 4th & 2 at NIU 4, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
3. at AKRQ3 5:51 4th & 3 at AKR 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
4. vs PITTQ2 1:59 4th & 2 at PITT 49, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
5. at NIUQ4 0:41 4th & 8 at NIU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
6. vs BGSUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at BGSU 9, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
7. vs M-OHQ2 5:52 4th & 3 at M-OH 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
8. at WKUQ3 3:35 4th & 2 at TOL 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

76th of 134 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

   DUQ
2. W

   MASS
3. W

   MSST
4. L

   WKU
5. W

   M-OH
6. L

   BUF
7. W

   NIU
8. L

   BGSU
9. W

   EMU
10. W

    CMU
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    AKR
13. W

    PITT

What moved it, 2024

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+0.11
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.39
• Timeouts−0.11
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• DUQW 49-10 vs DUQ96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MASSW 38-23 vs MASS90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 41-17 at MSST23% → 99%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +65, Clock +3
• WKUL 21-26 at WKU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −4
• M-OHW 30-20 vs M-OH63% → 57%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −5: Timeouts −4, Possession & field position −1
• BUFL 15-30 at BUF80% → 0%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −61
• NIUW 13-6 at NIU40% → 97%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• BGSUL 26-41 vs BGSU55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• EMUW 29-28 at EMU78% → 81%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +13
• CMUW 37-10 vs CMU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20
• OHIOL 7-24 vs OHIO57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• AKRL 14-21 at AKR76% → 57%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −19: Scoreboard +13, Clock +3
• PITTW 48-46 vs PITT31% → 98%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +67: Clock +36, Scoreboard +28

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.