Bowling Green
2–4 · Ours #124Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
13–31Our projected score
Western Michigan
4–2 · Ours #79Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceHow often each team wins the game outright when we play it out thousands of times from our line.WMU 86%
WMU 86%SpreadThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. WMU −18
TotalThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's projected combined score for both teams, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. 43.8
Our call · No priceNeither DraftKings nor FanDuel is offering our side at our number right now, so there is no price to judge.—
Quarterbackslast game's starter · most dropbacks in each team's last game
Jay KastantinJunior · 6 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 134 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- +0.1167th
- Comp %
- 66.0
- TD
- 5
- Turnovers
- 33 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 5
Broc LowryJunior · 6 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 134 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- −0.02105th
- Comp %
- 68.8
- TD
- 7
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 8
The matchupeach offense against the defense it faces · FBS rank in the colored cell
| Western Michiganoffense | Even | defenseBowling Green | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 93rd | +0.03 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.07 | 93rd |
| 84th | 41.9% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.6%. | 45.6% | 116th |
| 105th | −0.02 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.10. | −0.09 | 33rd |
| 78th | +0.06 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.20 | 127th |
| 126th | 9.4% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.9%. | 12.4% | 87th |
| Bowling Greenoffense | Defense edge · 4 of 5 | defenseWestern Michigan | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 122nd | −0.05 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.04 | 74th |
| 111th | 39.6% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.6%. | 41.9% | 83rd |
| 73rd | +0.08 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.10. | +0.10 | 89th |
| 135th | −0.18 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | −0.01 | 59th |
| 116th | 10.2% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.9%. | 9.8% | 31st |
Team stats
| Western MichiganWMU | Bowling GreenBGSU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Special teamsSpecial teams expected points added per game. | +3.515th | −0.699th |
| Field positionAverage starting field position against the opponent's, in yards. | +3.440th | −3.3115th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| Scoring chancesShare of drives that reach the opponent's 40. | 52%72nd | 45%103rd |
| Points per chancePoints scored per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.1066th | 2.91126th |
| Time of possession | 28:3073rd | 30:0046th |
| Plays per game | 60118th | 57134th |
| Turnovers & havoc | ||
| Turnover margin | +7 | +1 |
| Giveaways – takeaways | 2 – 9 | 9 – 10 |
| Havoc rateShare of defensive plays with a sack, tackle for loss, interception or forced fumble. | 5.8%132nd | 11.3%32nd |
Season so far
Bowling Green2–4 · 92nd-hardest schedule
Lvs Tarleton State13–20missed −2
L
at Nebraska7–56missed +30.5
at Nebraska7–56missed +30.5L
at Iowa State7–55missed +23.5
at Iowa State7–55missed +23.5L
vs South Florida6–14covered +18.5
vs South Florida6–14covered +18.5W
at Miami (OH)24–20covered +10.5
at Miami (OH)24–20covered +10.5W
vs Sacramento State38–10covered −9
vs Sacramento State38–10covered −9Western Michigan4–2 · 106th-hardest schedule
L
at Michigan12–13covered +27.5
at Michigan12–13covered +27.5Wvs Monmouth49–14covered −29.5
W
at Rice28–21missed −8.5
at Rice28–21missed −8.5L
vs Boise State7–32missed +8.5
vs Boise State7–32missed +8.5W
at Buffalo20–17missed −12.5
at Buffalo20–17missed −12.5W
vs Kent State38–7covered −14
vs Kent State38–7covered −14Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 13, 7:26 AM EDT · freezes at kickoff and grades as-is