Week 2 · Final
10 – 63
Vegas Line
No market line
No total published
Model Projection
TOL -16.5
TOL 92.8% win · O/U 50.7
Value Edge
No market line
No market total to compare
Model Rationale
Preseason baseline: portal composite talent blended with the 2021–2025 archive by roster continuity.
- Phase
- Preseason baseline
- 2026 sample
- 0 games · 0%
- Historical baseline
- 100%
- Baseline margin
- TOL -12.6
- TOL: 0 portal additions / 1 departures, first year under Mike Jacobs — 2021–2025 archive weighted 67%, incoming portal talent −0.5 pts.
Central Connecticut — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Toledo ranks #103 nationally allowing 247.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #94 run defense.
2Contain Connor Walendzak
Toledo's top producer this season: 76 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Central Connecticut has to take away.
3Protect the turnover edge
Central Connecticut is +0 in turnover margin (0 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; Toledo sits at -1.
Toledo — Keys to Victory
1Fix the turnover margin
Toledo is -1 in turnover margin (0 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Central Connecticut sits at +0.
2Move the ball efficiently
Toledo averages 273.0 total yards per game (#122 nationally). No market total is published for this game yet.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
John Alan RichterTOL · QB
- Passing Yds
- 196
- Completion %
- 57.1%
- Yards / Attempt
- 9.3
- TD : INT
- 2 : 1
- TD/INT Ratio
- 2.00:1
- Passer Rating
- 157.4
Leading Rusher
Connor WalendzakTOL · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 76
- Carries
- 7
- Yards / Carry
- 10.9
- Rushing TD
- 1
- Long
- 71
Primary Receiver
Adjatay DabbsTOL · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 101
- Receptions
- 4
- Yards / Catch
- 25.3
- Receiving TD
- 2
- Long
- 60
Defensive Leader
Isaac ZayTOL · LB
- Tackles
- 12
- Solo
- 6
- Sacks
- 1.0
- TFL
- 1.0
- INT
- 0
Matchup Simulator
Starts from the CFB 360 projection for this exact game. Turnover swings are valued at 4.2 points each; pace scales the projected total against a 140-play baseline.
Simulated Winner
TOL by 16.6
Baseline TOL -16.5
Simulated Total
50.7
Baseline 50.7
Unit Edge
TOL QB
TOL FBS average · CCSU Below average
CCSU passing vs TOL coverage
| 0.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 247.0 |
| 0.0% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 7.3 |
| 0.0 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 76.5% |
| 0.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 8.8% |
| 0.000 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.338 |
CCSU rushing vs TOL run defense
| 0.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 150.0 |
| 0.0 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.1 |
| 0.0 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 21.3% |
| 0.0% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 5 |
| 0.000 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.157 |
TOL passing vs CCSU coverage
| 0.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 196.0 |
| 0.0 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 57.1% |
| 0.0% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 9.3 |
| 0.0% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 2.00:1 |
| 0.000 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.501 |
Efficiency & situational
| — | Third-down conversion | 12.5% |
| 0.0 | Total yards / game | 273.0 |
| 0.0 | Yards allowed / game | 397.0 |
| 0 | Turnover margin | -1 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.