Week 1 2026 · September 5, 2026
Tarleton State at Bowling Green, Week 1 2026: who deserved to win?
Tarleton State beat Bowling Green 20–13, and the replays lean its way: with the same day's form, it wins 8 of 10. Bowling Green had the bounces: 3rd & 4th downs alone were worth 19 points of win probability to Bowling Green.
Before kickoff Bowling Green was a 54% favorite. The biggest swing (Q4, 2:10 left): Bowling Green was stopped on 4th & 1, worth 12 points of win probability to Tarleton State.
Final
 Tarleton State Texans | 20 |
|---|---|
 Bowling Green Falcons | 13 |
Replay with same day's form
Luck index +23 Tarleton State about even · −23 Bowling Green
Each team’s own plays from this game, resampled into new drives 4,000 times: with the way both teams actually played, how often does this performance win? How the replay works
Ten replays. Tarleton State wins 8, Bowling Green wins 2.
- 1 TAR 45 BGSU 10
- 2 TAR 42 BGSU 17
- 3 TAR 41 BGSU 21
- 4 TAR 30 BGSU 13
- 5 TAR 28 BGSU 14
- 6 TAR 31 BGSU 21
- 7 TAR 27 BGSU 20
- 8 TAR 17 BGSU 14
- 9 TAR 14 BGSU 17
- 10 TAR 21 BGSU 33
Three other ways to ask
Each answers a different question, so none of them replaces the replay above.
Before kickoff
The closing betting line, turned into a probability. What everyone knew before the game.
Same teams, fresh game
The line plus what this game showed, weighted by how much one game can tell. It stays close to the line because one game says little.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Every kick, fumble bounce, conversion and judgment call redrawn; everything else fixed. The narrowest view of luck.
How 4,000 replays ended
Tarleton State wins 77% of them, Bowling Green 23%, counting the 6% still level after regulation as half each. The line is what actually happened: Tarleton State by 7.
Show as a table
| Final margin in the replays | Share of replays |
|---|---|
| Tarleton State by 17+ | 32.5% |
| Tarleton State by 9–16 | 19.3% |
| Tarleton State by 1–8 | 20.4% |
| Level after regulation | 6.4% |
| Bowling Green by 1–8 | 11.9% |
| Bowling Green by 9–16 | 6.0% |
| Bowling Green by 17+ | 3.5% |
Where the luck was
What the luck was worth
Every lucky and unlucky play, weighted by the moment it happened: its swing in win probability, added up by kind. A missed kick in a decided game counts for nothing; the same kick at the end of a tie game can be most of a win.
The kicks
How likely each kicker was to make that kick (his own record, the distance), and what happened.
- A. De La Poza, 23 yds made · 92% expected
- T. Kenner, 40 yds made · 72% expected
- A. De La Poza, 26 yds made · 90% expected
- T. Kenner, 35 yds made · 81% expected
Penalties: Tarleton State 7 for 62 yards, Bowling Green 7 for 65 yards
Every accepted flag, in order, and what it did to the helped team’s chance of winning at that moment, including any play it wiped out (points on the scoreboard in grey). A flag in a decided game is worth nothing; one at the turn of a close game can be worth most of a win. Judgment calls count toward luck, pre-snap fouls mostly don’t. How calls are valued
| When | Flag | Win probability for |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 14:56 | Holding on Bowling Green, 10 yards | +1% TAR +0.6 pts |
| Q1 6:10 | Holding on Bowling Green, 10 yards | +1% TAR +0.5 pts |
| Q1 0:55 | Offside on Tarleton State, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% BGSU +0.1 pts |
| Q2 13:13 | Holding on Tarleton State, 10 yards | +3% BGSU +1.3 pts |
| Q2 9:50 | False Start on Tarleton State, 5 yards · pre-snap | +3% BGSU +1.7 pts |
| Q2 1:10 | Unsportsmanlike Conduct on Tarleton State, 7 yards | +2% BGSU +1.2 pts |
| Q2 0:47 | Personal Foul on Bowling Green, 15 yards | +4% TAR +1.6 pts |
| Q2 0:40 | Holding on Tarleton State, 10 yards | +1% BGSU +0.6 pts |
| Q3 7:54 | False Start on Bowling Green, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% BGSU +0.2 pts |
| Q3 6:54 | Pass Interference on Tarleton State, 15 yards | +7% BGSU +2.8 pts |
| Q3 4:37 | Holding on Tarleton State, 10 yards | +2% BGSU +0.6 pts |
| Q4 10:58 | Delay of Game on Bowling Green, 5 yards · pre-snap | +5% TAR +1.5 pts |
| Q4 10:03 | Pass Interference on Bowling Green, 15 yards | +2% TAR +0.5 pts |
| Q4 9:29 | Offside on Bowling Green, 5 yards · pre-snap | +2% TAR +0.5 pts |
When it happened
Bowling Green’s chance of winning
As low as 0% and as high as 55%. Numbers mark the biggest luck moments, listed below.
| # | When | What happened | Win probability for | Next drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Q1 4:14 | Tarleton State was stopped on 4th & 23rd & 4th downs · 66% expected | +5% BGSU | TAR: Field goal |
| 2 | Q3 6:54 | Pass Interference on Tarleton State, 15 yardsJudgment calls | +7% BGSU | BGSU: Field goal |
| 3 | Q3 2:16 | Tarleton State was stopped on 4th & 33rd & 4th downs · 56% expected | +7% BGSU | TAR: Field goal |
| 4 | Q3 2:09 | Bowling Green fumbled and Tarleton State recoveredFumble bounces · loose balls are close to 50/50 | +6% TAR | BGSU: Field goal |
| 5 | Q4 7:49 | Tarleton State was stopped on 4th & 23rd & 4th downs · 65% expected | +8% BGSU | TAR: Turnover |
| 6 | Q4 5:56 | Bowling Green converted 3rd & 93rd & 4th downs · 27% expected | +8% BGSU | BGSU: Turnover on downs |
| 7 | Q4 4:12 | Bowling Green converted 3rd & 63rd & 4th downs · 36% expected | +11% BGSU | BGSU: Turnover on downs |
| 8 | Q4 2:10 | Bowling Green was stopped on 4th & 13rd & 4th downs · 67% expected | +12% TAR | BGSU: End of game |
Adjust the assumptions
Disagree with how much of a fumble bounce or a pass interference call is luck? Change it and the coin-flip replay reruns in your browser.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Tarleton State 99% · Bowling Green 1%
- Final margin
- Tarleton State by 7
- Luck in points
- 9.9 for Bowling Green
- Luck-adjusted margin
- Tarleton State by 16.9
- Replay with same day's form
- Tarleton State 77% · Bowling Green 23% unchanged: why
About these numbers
Play-by-play and expected points from CollegeFootballData.com via cfbfastR; win probability from our own model of the score, the possession and the betting line; kicks valued against each kicker’s own record. College play-by-play has no charting of drops or interception-worthy throws and no injury reports, so those kinds of luck aren’t counted here.
Methodology and validation · All Week 1 2026 games · 
Tarleton State · 
Bowling Green
More from Week 1 2026
- Toledo at Michigan State MSU 30–20 · replay 49% for the winner
- San José State at Eastern Michigan SJSU 27–21 · replay 65% for the winner
- Massachusetts at Rutgers MASS 37–21 · replay 74% for the winner
- UAlbany at Buffalo BUF 21–17 · replay 82% for the winner
- Western Michigan at Michigan MICH 13–12 · replay 86% for the winner
- Akron at Wake Forest WAKE 38–16 · replay 92% for the winner
- Ohio at Nebraska NEB 49–21 · replay 93% for the winner
- Austin Peay at Vanderbilt VAN 28–9 · replay 95% for the winner
- Miami (OH) at Pittsburgh PITT 59–14 · replay 96% for the winner
- Sacramento State at Eastern Michigan EMU 28–17 · replay 96% for the winner
- North Alabama at Arkansas ARK 31–14 · replay 98% for the winner
- Eastern Kentucky at Jacksonville State JXST 49–7 · replay 99% for the winner