Toledo vs. Bowling Green: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TOLTeam statsBGSU
- Q3 2:44BGSUNate Needham 26 Yd Field Goal 7–20
- Q2 7:52BGSUGrant Loy 15 Yd Run (Nate Needham Kick)7–17
- Q2 12:24TOLBryant Koback 14 Yd pass from Mitchell Guadagni (Evan Davis Kick)7–10
- Q1 7:35BGSUBryson Denley 66 Yd pass from Grant Loy (Nate Needham Kick)0–10
- Q1 13:09BGSUNate Needham 32 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassMitchell Guadagni 17/20, 194 YDS, 1 TD
- RushBryant Koback 14 CAR, 60 YDS
- RecDanzel McKinley-Lewis 3 REC, 71 YDS
- PassGrant Loy 14/21, 185 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushGrant Loy 19 CAR, 137 YDS, 1 TD
- RecBryson Denley 6 REC, 100 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsBGSU up 13 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,180 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 2:44BGSU +32%
Nate Needham 26 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 7:52BGSU +21%
Grant Loy run for 15 yds for a TD, (Nate Needham KICK)
- Q1 7:35BGSU +14%
Grant Loy pass complete to Bryson Denley for 66 yds for a TD, (Nate Needham KICK)
- Q4 15:00BGSU +13%
Grant Loy pass incomplete to Quintin Morris
- Q2 12:24TOL +12%
Mitchell Guadagni pass complete to Bryant Koback for 14 yds for a TD, (Evan Davis KICK)
- Q4 9:24BGSU +12%
Davon Jones run for 9 yds to the BwGrn 35
FAQ
What was the final score of Toledo vs. Bowling Green?
Toledo 7, Bowling Green 20.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked TOL, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| TOL | BGSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 392 | Total yards | 425 |
| 260 | Passing yards | 185 |
| 132 | Rushing yards | 240 |
| 21 | First downs | 17 |
| 5-16 | 3rd down | 6-14 |
| 2-5 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 23/35 | Comp/Att | 14/21 |
| 7.4 | Yards per pass | 8.8 |
| 3.4 | Yards per rush | 5.9 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 2-10 | Penalties | 9-74 |
| 29:27 | Possession | 30:33 |
Costliest call
Q4 15:00 BGSU punt on 4th & 9 at TOL 35. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 1.07 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 2:44BGSUNate Needham 26 Yd Field Goal 7–20
- Q2 7:52BGSUGrant Loy 15 Yd Run (Nate Needham Kick)7–17
- Q2 12:24TOLBryant Koback 14 Yd pass from Mitchell Guadagni (Evan Davis Kick)7–10
- Q1 7:35BGSUBryson Denley 66 Yd pass from Grant Loy (Nate Needham Kick)0–10
- Q1 13:09BGSUNate Needham 32 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BGSU Elo 899, TOL Elo 1514 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BGSU +22.2 (9% to win) — 4.8 points clear of BGSU's market line of +27. That is a disagreement, not a betting edge — sides we favour have not covered at better than breakeven.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2019
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#4 of 105 in 2019 by biggest miss · #2 of 124 in 2019 by longest odds.
The 2019 upset archive →Toledo leads 33–30–1 · Bowling Green has won 2 straight · 42% have been one-possession games
| TOL | BGSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -14.3 (#108) | CORE overall | -37.6 (#128) |
| -0 / +14 | offense / defense | -19 / +19 |
| 2.16 | points / drive | 0.93 |
| 2.95 | allowed / drive | 3.39 |
| 29% | three-and-outs | 39% |
| -8 | pass over expected | -8 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →