Skip to content

Bowling Green Falcons

Mid-American·0-2·
Elo
1340#108
SP+
-12.8#112
FPI
-14.8
AP
NR
Next@ Iowa State · Wk 3Win prob 8%Model +21.1
Talent #111 (568.3)Recruiting class #75-6% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Bowling Green

All news

Bowling Green can't throw on this Nebraska secondary

Matchup · 4d ago

Kaden Anderson produced five of Tarleton State's seven explosive plays

Matchup · 6d ago

Roster · 106 players

FR 53SO 23JR 15SR 15
#PlayerPosClHtWt
10Hunter NajmQBSO6'1"190
12Jarin MockQBFR6'3"212
13Caleb MoyerQBFR6'2"193
15Dylan DreaskyQBFR6'2"197
16Austin NovosadQBJR6'3"203
17Jay KastantinQBJR6'4"235
1Austyn DendyRBSO6'1"230
2Nakai AmachreeRBSO5'10"195
4Ke'Marion BaldwinRBJR5'9"205
20Marceles CareyRBFR5'11"165
21Carson LovettRBFR6'1"220
33Tristin BlackmonRBFR6'1"220
44Leo KempFBSR5'11"239
3Trey JohnsonWRSR6'0"200
5Brennan RidleyWRJR5'11"177
6Isaiah DawsonWRSO5'8"192
9Nick SowellWRJR6'5"205
11Austin ClayWRSO6'0"175
14Pauly SadlerWRFR6'1"190
18Winn SharpWRSO6'5"200
19Joseph SaffoldWRFR6'1"185
23Dom WoodsWRFR6'0"172
25Cade BrooksWRFR5'11"190
83Pierce St GemeWRSO5'11"186
87Reddik PillarelliWRSO6'0"195
0Jeremiah ScobyTESO6'3"218
8Eli Jacon-DuffyTESO6'4"245
47Kentrell WhiteTEFR6'4"215
80Ocean BrabbsTESO6'3"213
82Maddox HunstadTEFR6'5"197
84Trent TaylorTEFR6'5"260
85Reece LittleTEFR6'3"230
86Derron Gray Jr.TEFR6'4"230
88Carsen MelvinTEFR6'3"225
89Blane CleaverTESR6'2"235
59John KolarchickOLFR6'6"320
61Pete PendergestOLFR6'5"285
64MJ DillardOLSO6'5"280
65Gabe FunkOLSO6'6"320
71Travis RobertsonOLFR6'7"310
75Maddux MurphyOLFR6'6"310
76Theo AndallOLFR6'3"295
50Vincent GiordanoOTFR6'5"310
58Ethan KraatzOTFR6'4"310
66Zane PanchulaOTFR6'5"305
70Alex HarrisOTSO6'5"320
53Masyn ZahurskyGFR6'4"305
73Caden CampbellGSO6'4"295
77James Thomas Jr.GJR6'5"295
78Alexis SanchezGSR6'3"335
54Brody BolynCJR6'3"310
5Eriq GeorgeDESR6'3"300
17Jaimion OlversonDEFR6'3"280
23Myles BradleyDESR6'0"230
48Quentin LewisDEFR6'2"240
4Kade KostusDLSR6'2"265
28Samuel DossousDLFR6'3"230
52Elijah Durham-SmithDLFR6'2"250
55Timothy Taylor Jr.DLFR6'0"275
56John Baker IVDLFR6'5"210
58Kore ThomasDLFR6'1"320
88Selah BrownDLSR6'2"295
90Bryce BrewsterDLFR6'3"245
93Trent MerrellDLFR6'3"250
96Cameron SimmonsDLFR6'3"240
54Dior GarnerDTFR6'3"285
57Dayln WhiteDTJR6'4"295
95Jonathan HendrixDTFR6'2"285
99Brendon RiceDTFR6'2"315
3Dorian PringleLBSO6'0"225
6Sanders EllisLBJR6'2"250
10Andrew Hines IIILBSO6'1"230
20Darian HawkinsLBFR6'4"217
30Caden CarterLBFR6'1"215
35Cashmire LewisLBFR6'4"215
36Jabari MitchellLBJR6'3"225
39Henry ReifschneiderLBSO6'0"212
44AJ OdomLBSR6'3"235
45Kingston SealsLBFR6'2"230
50Jonathan GoinsLBSO6'1"220
2JoJo JohnsonCBSR6'0"188
18Nick SawyerCBSR5'11"178
26Josira AndrewsCBSO5'10"180
32Rico GarciaCBFR5'10"180
37Garrison BlairCBSO5'10"185
7Mike Wright IIIDBJR5'10"188
11Armhan HaleDBSR5'11"213
13Chris Newell Jr.DBFR5'10"182
14JayT JacksonDBSR6'1"179
21Cedarius ChristianDBFR6'1"190
22Julian HoltDBFR6'1"200
41Drey BraxtonDBJR5'10"175
0Kal-El PascalSJR6'0"190
9Preston EstoEstaSSO6'1"190
15D'kyah BanksSSO6'5"185
19Jahai JohnsonSFR6'1"200
40DeVenchi Arnold IISFR6'1"190
12Travis KennerPKJR5'10"178
27Treyton McKeePKFR5'11"192
40Ethan WarnerPKSR5'9"192
95Carlos GuerraPKFR5'8"175
97Drew RosickPKFR6'1"180
30Ryan KingstonPSR6'6"220
91Alex JenkinsPFR6'1"225
52Quinn ForsytheLSFR6'2"180
56Quillan JimenezLSJR6'2"220

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
10.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
38.0
scoring defense
Differential
-28.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
366.0#95
Yards / play
5.5#96
Passing yards / game
262.0#53
Rushing yards / game
104.0#115
First downs / game
21.0#66
3rd down %
46.2%#53
4th down %
50.0%#67
Time of possession
34:53#15
Defense
Yards allowed / game
464.0#125
Yards / play allowed
8.1#134
Pass yards allowed / game
206.0#72
Rush yards allowed / game
258.0#131
3rd down % allowed
10.0%#6
Sacks
1#104
Tackles for loss
2#130
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-1#89
Takeaways
1#88
Giveaways
2#68
Penalties / game
7.0#79
Penalty yards / game
65.0#98

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

Bowling Green is in year 2 under Eddie George. The strengths are defensive, led by 13th at stuffing runs at the line. The way in is 134th at throwing it, and they are 132nd at moving the ball on the ground.

Bowling Green has not played an FBS opponent yet, so this is the projection: last season regressed toward the mean, plus returning production, recruiting, talent and whether the staff is the same one.

Projected strengths

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #13
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensethrowing it
    #134
    projected
  • Offensemoving the ball on the ground
    #132
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #132
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
2.89.2
projected final record (now 02)
Exp. wins left
2.8
of 10 games
Bowl odds
1%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
91%
vs Massachusetts
Toughest
5%
vs Western Michigan

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

012345678910
final winstallest bar = 33% chance
Likeliest finish 3-9 (33%)Bowl eligible 1% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBJay Kastantin
+15.2 EPA
TEBlane Cleaver, Eli Jacon-Duffy +1
+11.3 EPA
WRWinn Sharp, Brennan Ridley
+4.3 EPA
RBKe'Marion Baldwin, Austyn Dendy +3
-11.8 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +15.20.323/play47 snaps
RBAustyn Dendy
~$145K
EPA -6.5-0.294/play22 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0312th#121
Def0.1537th#87
Explosiveness
Off0.985th#131
Def1.4022nd#108
Field position
Off70.659th#57
Def74.533rd#93
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.179th#125
Def3.3350th#70
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 4
Margin -2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.5678th#31
Off · rush
-0.412nd#135

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.412nd#135
Def-0.0255th#63
Passing
Off0.5678th#31
Def0.3723rd#106

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.31#120
2nd-level / open-field
0.42 / 0.22
Power / stuff (off)
50.0% / 25.0%
Havoc — total (def)
8.5%#137
Havoc — front 7 / DB
5.1% / 3.4%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.01
Def0.22
Pass downs
Off0.06
Def-0.01

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.23#1280.09#900.63#63
Defense0.57#1370.09#68-0.46#4

Elo Trajectory

Tarleton StateMassachusetts
Elo rating 13401340+0 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.0318th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1533rd
  • Offense success rate39%30th
  • Defense success rate allowed39%45th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs47%39th
  • Offense success — passing downs21%18th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs49%29th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs17%85th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.9812th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.422nd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.7913th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.058th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.312th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.939th
  • Offense highlight yards0.2215th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed4.31st
  • Offense power success0.5022nd
  • Defense power success allowed0.5079th
  • Offense stuff rate0.2516th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2574th

Third down

  • Third down conversion46%53rd
  • Third down distance faced7.138th
  • Third down conversion allowed11%93rd
  • Third down distance forced6.120th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1220th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1055th

Roster

  • Returning usage23%24th
  • Returning EPA-7.11st
  • Team talent composite56820th
  • Recruiting class rank75.046th
  • Recruiting class points18846th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.025#121 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.565#31
Rush EPA/play
-0.410#135
Explosiveness
0.985#131
Pts/opportunity
2.17#125
Success rate
39.4%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.975 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Coverage-heavy defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.147#87 · average
Havoc rate (total)
8.5%#137
Front-7 havoc
5.1%
DB havoc
3.4%
Big play rate allowed
1.399#108
Success rate allowed
39.0%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

10.0 PPG offense, 38.0 allowed — -28.0 margin/game
Points per game
10.0
Points allowed/game
38.0
Scoring margin/game
-28.0
Turnover margin
-2won 2 · lost 4
Production returning
-6%
Talent rank (247)
#111

0-2 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE12thEXPLOSIVENESS5thFINISHING9thFIELD POS59thDEFENSE37thHAVOC1th50th100th
Offense
12th
Explosiveness
5th
Finishing
9th
Field Pos
59th
Defense
37th
Havoc
1th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-12.7
#122
Offense
-11.4
#133
Defense
+1.3
#83
Full CORE ratings →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Bowling Green is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Bowling Green in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Eastern MichiganSP+ -15.6
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.117Elo 1353
Match
98%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1349
Match
98%
UNLVSP+ +2.3
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.186Elo 1589
Match
98%
Oklahoma StateSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play -0.018Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1212
Match
98%
WyomingSP+ -15.2
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1300
Match
98%
Central MichiganSP+ -20.0
Off EPA/play -0.047Def EPA/play +0.131Elo 1259
Match
96%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +16.6, #18 of 1282016: -20.0, #116 of 1282017: -20.8, #121 of 1302018: -19.0, #117 of 1302019: -37.6, #128 of 1302020: -21.6, #117 of 1242021: -22.1, #116 of 1302022: -12.2, #106 of 1312023: -1.8, #69 of 1332024: +1.8, #61 of 1342025: -18.8, #122 of 1362026: -12.7, #122 of 138
20152026
Now -12.7 · #122 of 138Best +16.6 in 2015Worst -37.6 in 2019

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-20-0
0%
0.3-0.3
20254-82-6
33%
4.8-0.8
20247-66-2
54%
7.4-0.4
20237-65-3
54%
6.8+0.2
20226-75-3
46%
4.9+1.1
20214-82-6
33%
3.0+1.0
20200-50-5
0%
0.0-0.0
20193-92-6
25%
2.8+0.2
20183-92-6
25%
2.8+0.2
20172-102-6
17%
2.5-0.5

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-0 so far, projected to finish 4.9-7.2. Wins the Mid-American in 4.8%.

If they finish with…

3.3%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.1 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 3.3% where the average Mid-American team is 1.1%.
  • The Mid-American takes 0.05 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.0% of seasons, having won their league in 100% of those.

Bowling Green’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk2at Nebraska0.7
  • wk3at Iowa State0.2
  • wk9at Western Michigan0.2
  • wk12at Toledo0.2
  • wk4vs South Florida0.2
  • wk5at Miami (OH)0.1

Who to root for

Games Bowling Green is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk11Northwestern over Ohio State0.1
  • wk3Eastern Michigan over Wisconsin0.1
  • wk5UTEP over New Mexico0.1
  • wk3Kentucky over Texas A&M0.1
  • wk13Charlotte over Navy0.1
  • wk3Arkansas State over TCU0.1
The full playoff picture →

Mid-American

0-0 in league play, projected 4.4-3.66 of 13 by title odds
4.8%
Wins the Mid-American
11%
Reaches the title game

The Mid-American sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk9Bowling Green at Western Michigan16.2
  • wk12Bowling Green at Toledo11.1
  • wk2Bowling Green at Nebraska10.3
  • wk5Bowling Green at Miami (OH)10.0

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mid-American race →

If not the playoff, then

37%
Bowl eligible
36%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
64%
Season over in November

Bowling Green is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Arizona Bowl7.9%
  • Famous Idaho Potato Bowl6.6%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl5.0%
  • Salute to Veterans Bowl3.9%
  • Boca Raton Bowl3.6%
  • GameAbove Sports Bowl3.1%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 10 have sent Bowling Green a player since 2010 — 21 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Bowling Green's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
GlenvilleOH40
MiddletownOH40
Archbishop MoellerOH20
Cibolo SteeleTX20
Dr. PhillipsFL20
DwyerFL20
Pickerington CentralOH20
HebronTX10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.