Offense#98
-4.0vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play0.20 #44 FBSSuccess rate44.6% #43 FBS
Mid-American · #94 of 138
Toledo
Implied Strength-7.3vs. FBS average · ±4.4
Record1–1through completed games
Bowl Eligibility91%reach six wins
Strength of Schedule133rdof 138 FBS teams
Schedule lens
What matters next
The headline numbers are above. Here is where the season starts to take shape.
Next matchupvs. TempleWeek 3 · OV Line TOL -5 · 65% win chance →Toughest remaining test#63 San Diego StateWeek 4 · 32% site win chance · View matchup →
Team identity
Where the strength lives
New head coach in 2026
The model sees a balanced team, with neither unit separating meaningfully from the other.
Defense#90
-3.3vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play allowed-0.08 #1 FBSSuccess rate allowed33.1% #4 FBS
2025 PPA (predicted points added per play) and success rate. How this split works →
Build Your Ratings
Who would win on a neutral field?
Pick the team you think is better. Your answers help build your personal ratings.
VS
Looks like you’re high on this year.
Want to explore new teams or keep comparing ?
Stored only in this browser -- nothing is sent anywhere.
Season outlook · 50,000 simulations
How Toledo's 2026 could unfold
The current projection is 8–4 (7.8 expected wins), with a <0.01% chance to reach the playoff. The distribution below shows how often each regular-season win total appeared across the schedule-aware simulations.
Range of outcomes
Projected win distribution
Most common and median 8 winsCentral 80% 6–10 winsBowl eligible 90.9%
Simulated (schedule-aware)Central 80% rangeMarket win total
Postseason path
2026 playoff outlook
0.3%Make the 12-team field
Still outside the median outcome across the schedule-aware simulations.
How the field is reached0.3% total
Auto-bid0.3%
At-large<0.01%
Outside field99.7%
Conference title28.4%
What could move the outlook
Biggest questions
Unresolved does not mean negative. A point estimate appears only when the historical evidence supports one.
How quickly does the new coaching staff take shape?
A first-year staff creates early-season implementation uncertainty even though the team-level baseline already incorporates the available preseason information.
The opener study found about a one-point market shade toward a retained coach, with a wide uncertainty range.Projection contextRoster, continuity, and market inputsView details
The market win total, returning production, coaching continuity, transfer talent, and recent NFL production help explain the evidence surrounding this projection.
Returning Production66.3%share of prior-year PPA returning for 2026
Coaching ContinuityNew HCfirst season under a new head coach
2026 Transfer Class30thof 138 FBS teams by combined portal talent
Recent NFL Draft Production35thof 138 FBS teams by NFL talent produced
Market win total7.7Consensus preseason line
Pregame evidence · 2022–25
Toledo through the lens
The OV Line is the aggregate-rating baseline. The market gap shows where the game-level consensus differed, while identified Factors show how much of that difference our research may explain. ATS records are descriptive context—not a claim that OV should outperform the market.
Market ATS67%8–4 against consensus
Average line gap2.8 pts67% inside 3 points · 8 of 12
Factor coverage33%4 of 12 games
Factor signals50% aligned2 of 4 individual observations · 0 neutral
Historical sample12 gamesmarket-covered games from 2022–25
Explanatory history
Factors present in Toledo games
| Factor | Games | Average estimate | Aligned with market | Research status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty | 4 | 2.6 pts toward opponents | 50%2 of 4 directional cases | Supported · wider uncertainty |
Underlying recordInspect all 12 historical gamesView games
| Season | Game | OV baseline | Market | Market gap | Identified adjustment | Remaining gap | Result | Market ATS | Factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 · W14 | at Central MichiganAway | Toledo -12 | Toledo -11.5 | 0.6 pts toward opponents | None identified | 0.6 pts toward opponents | W 21–3 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W13 | vs. Ball StateHome | Toledo -28 | Toledo -29.5 | 1.6 pts toward Toledo | 3.6 pts toward opponents | 5.2 pts toward Toledo | W 38–9 | L | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W12 | at Miami (OH)Away | Toledo -4.5 | Toledo -5.5 | 0.8 pts toward Toledo | None identified | 0.8 pts toward Toledo | W 24–3 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W11 | vs. Northern IllinoisHome | Toledo -18.5 | Toledo -15.5 | 2.8 pts toward opponents | None identified | 2.8 pts toward opponents | W 42–3 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W9 | at Washington StateAway | Toledo -5 | Toledo -1.5 | 3.6 pts toward opponents | None identified | 3.6 pts toward opponents | L 7–28 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W8 | vs. Kent StateHome | Toledo -32 | Toledo -25.5 | 6.4 pts toward opponents | 4.4 pts toward opponents | 2.0 pts toward opponents | W 45–10 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W7 | at Bowling GreenAway | Toledo -11 | Toledo -10.5 | 0.7 pts toward opponents | None identified | 0.7 pts toward opponents | L 23–28 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W5 | vs. AkronHome | Toledo -25.5 | Toledo -21.5 | 4.1 pts toward opponents | 3.3 pts toward opponents | 0.8 pts toward opponents | W 45–3 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W4 | at Western MichiganAway | Toledo -14 | Toledo -13 | 1.2 pts toward opponents | None identified | 1.2 pts toward opponents | L 13–14 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W3 | vs. Morgan StateHome | Toledo -36 | Toledo -33.5 | 2.6 pts toward opponents | 0.9 pts toward Toledo | 3.5 pts toward opponents | W 60–0 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W2 | vs. Western KentuckyHome | Toledo 0 | Toledo -8 | 8.2 pts toward Toledo | None identified | 8.2 pts toward Toledo | W 45–21 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W1 | at KentuckyAway | Toledo +11.5 | Toledo +10 | 1.5 pts toward Toledo | None identified | 1.5 pts toward Toledo | L 16–24 | W | None identified |
Sample: 12 market-covered games from 2022–25. Identified adjustments are rough sums of the Factors shown and are not a replacement betting line. Remaining gap is market consensus minus the OV baseline and identified adjustments. A push means the team’s scoring margin exactly matched the market line.