← Matchups

Bowling Green

MAC · 0-2 · power -1.8 · #194
Our side · spreadBGSU +23.5 our number ISU -22.6 · 0.9 pts from the market our number starts from the opening line and is corrected -2.7 for this matchup by our data on both teams

Iowa State

B12 · 1-1 · power +21.9 · #27
Our side
SpreadBGSU +23.5 ours ISU -22.6
TotalOver 47.5 ours 48.5
MoneylineISU to win ours 92% · book 94%
Distance from the market 0.9 pts / +1.0 total a caution, not a signal
Projected score 13–36 BGSU – ISU
2026-09-19 · 12:00 PM Jack Trice Stadium · Ames, IA Early season

The books 1 account books · tap any price — the ticket builds at that book

Book BGSU spreadISU spread OverUnder BGSU winISU win BGSU TT overBGSU TT under ISU TT overISU TT under
FanDuel

The gold price is the best available on that side; a gold marks the side our number implies — a read, not a pick. TT is a team total — that team’s own points, not the game’s; columns are empty where no book hangs one. Send to book opens whichever book you tapped, not the one we would have picked. Prices are the books’ own.

Ours vs the market

SpreadIowa State -22.6
the marketIowa State -23.5
Total48.5
the market47.5
Iowa State win92% vs 94%

Both percentages are Iowa State’s chance to win — ours, then the book’s with the vig removed, medianed across the books we track.

What the gap has been worth 10,740 games · 2016–2025

0–3 pts52.0%
3–750.2%
7–1449.3%
14+46.8%

How often the side we favoured covered, by how far our number sat from the market’s. Break-even at −110 is 52.4% — no bucket reaches it, and the rate falls as we disagree more. The further we sit from the market, the worse we have done.

Series Iowa State lead 2–0 · 2 meetings since 1977
2025 unit ranks — last completed season, from games actually played
Run game edge Iowa State Cyclones 139 ranks
Bowling Green Falcons #188 rush offense Iowa State Cyclones #49 run defense
Pass game edge Iowa State Cyclones 80 ranks
Bowling Green Falcons #199 pass offense Iowa State Cyclones #119 pass defense
Run game edge Iowa State Cyclones 52 ranks
Iowa State Cyclones #76 rush offense Bowling Green Falcons #128 run defense
Pass game edge Iowa State Cyclones 104 ranks
Iowa State Cyclones #87 pass offense Bowling Green Falcons #191 pass defense
Bowling Green Falcons Run-heavy · 63% run Ball-control Iowa State Cyclones Run-heavy · 58% run Avg pace
Eddie George · 4-8 · defense-minded Matt Campbell · 81-57

Ranked by team-unit strength (rush & pass offense vs. run & pass defense) across all 265 D1 teams, not by individual players. Identity, tempo and unit strength are measured from the 2025 season.

The evidence 2025 production and power ratings · supporting the number above

Who carried each team in 2025
Bowling Green Falcons
DB Kal-El Pascal 22 tkl · 1 PD #29 DB
LB Dorian Pringle 23 tkl · 1.5 TFL #41 LB
TE Jeremiah Scoby 12 rec · 121 yds #25 TE
DB JoJo Johnson 9 tkl · 1 INT #359 DB
Iowa State Cyclones
DL Isaac Terrell 5 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL #116 DL
LB Sullivan Schlimgen 18 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.0 TFL #87 LB
TE Vince Benetti 3 rec · 34 yds · 2 TD #42 TE
QB Jaylen Raynor 301 pass yds · 3 TD · 0 INT #82 QB

Top-rated players from last season, ranked within their position across D1. A grade measures what a player produced, and no 2026 game has been played yet — so this is who produced for these programs in 2025, not a claim about who is on the field this year.

Power breakdown
TeamPowerOffDefRank
Bowling Green FalconsMAC -1.8 -6.9 +5.1 #194
Iowa State CyclonesB12 +21.9 +7.5 +14.4 #27

Def is higher = better. The projection assumes a 2.4-pt home edge (0 at neutral sites).

Where the number comes from
Bowling Green offense vs Iowa State defense-21.3 pts
Iowa State offense vs Bowling Green defense+2.4 pts
Travel · context onlyAway team travels 518 mi

An efficiency adjustment from season-to-date EPA and success rate applies once teams have played enough games; before then it is 0 and the number is the power rating alone.

Situational spots are shown for context, not baked in: travel, altitude and rest were tested against 6,000+ games and the power and efficiency ratings already account for them. Adding them again would double-count.