Yes, the Season 26 Rookie Prospect Bowl will probably be remembered for the final playoff game in which the undefeated 4-0-0 Banff Bandits lost to the 1-3-0 Brisbane Dropbears in the title game. But there was one other team in the tournament who lost out to the Dropbears on a playoff appearance based on a total points scored tiebreak: the 1-3-0 Mars Explorers. The Explorers had a heartbreaking tournament, with three of their four games going into overtime and a devastating final home game loss to the Bandits with an overtime safety to get knocked out of the playoffs.
But was this always to be their fate; were they just that bad? Or were they just a victim of the sim, going down in history as one of the unluckiest Prospect Bowl teams?
To answer this, I collected and compared the team stats displayed at the end of the Prospect Bowl games. Then somewhat arbitrarily graded each of the Explorers’ four tournament games based on the following metrics: home field advantage; total yards; time of possession; passing game domination defined as a combination of total passing yards, passing efficiency (completions/attempts) and average yards per pass; running game domination defined as a combination of total running yards, number of running plays, and average yards per rush; penalties; and turnovers. Based on these stats, I predict the outcome of the game and then compare to the actual outcome. This is one way we can learn just how heartbreaking the Prospect Bowl was for the Explorers.
Here we go.
Game 1. Dropbears @ Explorers
Advantage: +0.5 (home)
Total yards: +0.5
The Explorers put up 336 total yards compared to the Dropbears’ 291
Time of possession: +0.5
The Explorers controlled the ball 36:57 compared to 28:23 for the Dropbears.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers had the edge in the passing game with 155 total passing yards to the Dropbears’ 121. The Explorers also attempted more passes and were more efficient with them. The Explorers ended the game with slightly higher passing efficiency at 16/35 = 0.457 to the Dropbears’ 13/29 = 0.448 and average yards per pass at 4.4 compared to 4.2.
Running game domination: +0.5
The Explorers also had a slight edge on the ground, with 181 total rushing yards to 170 by the Dropbears. The Explorers were also more efficient with their rushing carries, with their higher total yards coming from 34 attempts for an average of 5.3 yards per carry compared to an average of 4.6 yards per carry over 37 attempts from the Dropbears.
Penalties: +0.5
The Explorers had a relatively clean game with only 3 penalties, but the penalties they did have were very costly in terms of yardage, amounting to 35 penalty yards. That was still less than the Dropbears who had 8 penalties for 40 yards.
Turnovers: -2
So up until this point, it looks like the hometown Explorers are a lock for the game, having controlled time of possession, put up more yards, and dominated both the passing and run games. However, the Explorers gave up a total of 4 turnovers in the game, with three interceptions and one lost fumble. This was far worse than the Dropbears who only gave up one interception the entire game.
Expected result based on total score: +1.5 = Likely Explorer victory
Actual result: Overtime loss
I don’t really know what to say for this except… OUCH.
Game 2. Explorers @ Bandits
Advantage: -0.5 (away)
Total yards: +0.5
The Explorers put up 375 total yards compared to the Bandits’ 302.
Time of possession: +0.5
The Explorers controlled the ball 34:03 compared to 25:57 for the Bandits.
Passing game domination: +1
The IA Kotone Shiomi had an incredible performance for the Explorers in their first away game of the tournament. The Explorers put up 278 passing yards, with 27 out of 39 attempts being completed. This amounted to a passing efficiency of 0.692. These were not all short check downs either, with average yards per pass of 7.1. The Bandits also had very good numbers in the passing game with 193 total passing yards, 16 of 27 competitions to attempts (for an efficiency of 0.293) and a similar 7.1 average yards per pass.
Running game domination: -0.5
So, while the Explorers had the clear edge in the passing game, the edge in the running game goes to the Bandits. The Bandits, while having a lower average yards per rush of 3.5 compared to the 6.1 average from Explorer Big Chungus, had 109 rushing yards and 31 rushing attempts to the Explorers’ 97 yards over 16 attempts.
Penalties: -0.5
While both teams had only 5 penalties in the game, the Explorers’ penalties cost them more yards, 35, compared to the Bandits’ 25.
Turnovers: -1
The Explorers were again worse off when it came to penalties, but the differential was not as bad as in Game 1. In this game, neither team had an interception, but the Explorers had two fumbles, one for a loss. While they were able to force one fumble against the Bandits, they weren’t able to recover it. So the game ended with 1 turnover for the Explorers and none for the Bandits.
Expected result based on total score: -0.5 = Somewhat likely Explorer loss
Actual result: Loss
So this loss wasn’t unexpected based on the numbers, but the Explorers put up a good fight with their best passing game performance of the tournament.
Game 4. Explorers @ Dropbears
Advantage: -0.5 (away)
Total yards: -0.5
This is the first game of the tournament in which the Explorers did not have the higher total yards. They put up only 302 yards to the Dropbears’ 445.
Time of possession: +0.5
Despite the Dropbears having more yards during the game, the Explorers’ had a slight edge on time of possession, controlling the ball 32:54 compared to 31:06 for the Dropbears.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers put up another exceptional game in the air. They finished the game had 250 passing yards to the Dropbears’ 177. These passing yards weren’t achieved with the highest efficiency, however, with only 24 completions from 55 attempts = 0.436 and an average yards per pass of 4.5. The Dropbears’ passing game made less of an impact moving them down the field, but was fairly efficient with 15 of 30 attempts completed = 0.500 and an average of 5.9 yards per pass.
Running game domination: -1
The Explorers were not able to get a running game going this game, with only 89 total running yards and an average of 4.9 yards per carry over 18 attempts. The Dropbears clearly had the edge in the run game, with 268 yards on the ground over 40 carriers (for an average of 6.7 yards per carry).
Penalties: -1
The Explorers had an ugly game when it came to penalties, getting 7 flags for a total of 55 penalty yards. This was a significant disadvantage compared to the home team Dropbears, who had only 3 penalties for 15 yards in the game.
Turnovers: +1.5
This is the first game of the tournament where the Explorers managed to keep hold of the ball, ending the game with no turnovers. Comparing this to the Dropbears’ three turnovers, including 1 fumble for a loss and 2 interceptions, this was a clear advantage for the Explorers.
Expected result: 0 = Any team’s game
Actual result: Overtime victory
This third game of the tournament really could have gone either way, with the home team Dropbears putting up significant yardage, especially on the ground, and having a healthy 14-6 lead at the half. The Explorers had difficulty in their run game and with penalties, but were able to gain yards through the air and capitalize on many Dropbears turnovers to close the lead and send the game to overtime. The Explorers were able to eek out the OT win, which went only so far in alleviating the sting of the home field OT loss in Game 1 against the same Dropbears team. No one can begrudge the Explorers their one victory of the tournament, despite the close team stats.
Game 6. Bandits @ Explorers
Advantage: +0.5 (home)
Total yards: +0.5
Again, the Explorers had the clear advantage in this game when it came to total yards. The home team put up 361 yards compared to the Bandits’ 276 yards.
Time of possession: +0.5
Again, the Explorers controlled time of possession for the game by a fairly healthy margin: 39:53 to 28:28.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers had the advantage in the passing game across all stats. They put up total of 186 passing yards, with an efficiency of 0.538 (21 completions over 39 attempts) and average yards per pass of 4.8. These numbers are all better than those of the Bandits, who put up only 156 yards in the air with an efficiency of 0.432 (only 16 completions over 37 attempts) and average yards per pass of 4.2.
Running game domination: +1
The Explorers also dominated the ground game, with 175 total running yards to the Bandits’ 120. The Explorers had more rushing attempts at 36 for an average of 4.9 yards per carry, while the Bandits ran only 29 running plays for an average of 4.1 yards per run.
Penalties: +1
The Explorers had a clean home game with only 4 flags for 25 yards. The Bandits struggled on the road when it came to penalties, getting 8 flags that totaled 61 penalty yards.
Turnovers: -1
In this final appearance of the tournament, the Explorers again found themselves at a disadvantage when it came to turnovers. The team gave up 3 interceptions and 1 fumble for a total of four turnovers, compared to two interceptions from the Bandits’ quarterback LeBron James III.
Expected result: +3.5 = Very likely Explorer victory
Actual result: Overtime loss (on a safety)
This final game of the tournament would determine whether the Explorers made it into the title game of the Prospect Bowl since their opponent, the Bandits, had already locked in their seed and the potential for an Explorers’ win to beat out the Dropbears’ 1-3-0 record. And the Explorers played to win, controlling the clock and dominating both the passing and running games despite some struggles with turnovers.
While the Bandits put up fewer stats, they made their drives count and scored a 4th quarter field goal to send the game to overtime. The Bandits received the ball to start OT, but the Explorers defense held. The teams traded punts, and then the Explorers had a new drive and a chance to win the game they had been dominating from the start. Instead, Kotone Shiomi was sacked in the endzone, resulting in a safety and a sudden death OT loss to end the tournament.
In summary, the Explorers put up some great stats throughout their Prospect Bowl tournament, being competitive in all of their games and sending three of the four into overtime. Yet, they weren’t quite able to win at home despite dominating the field when hosting both the Dropbears in Game 1 and the Bandits in Game 6. These two overtime losses were unexpected (based on the team stats) and even more heartbreaking because these were lost in front of family and friends on Mars.
While I’m not sure whether this will go down in the history books as one of the most heartbreaking Prospect Bowl, it leaves an entire generation of Mars football fans with souls crushed and an emerging underdog sentiment.
Because no one likes working with screenshots, team stats are available as a .csv file here along with the double round robin game results: https://github.com/Mojojojo-ISFL/S26-ProspectBowl.
But was this always to be their fate; were they just that bad? Or were they just a victim of the sim, going down in history as one of the unluckiest Prospect Bowl teams?
To answer this, I collected and compared the team stats displayed at the end of the Prospect Bowl games. Then somewhat arbitrarily graded each of the Explorers’ four tournament games based on the following metrics: home field advantage; total yards; time of possession; passing game domination defined as a combination of total passing yards, passing efficiency (completions/attempts) and average yards per pass; running game domination defined as a combination of total running yards, number of running plays, and average yards per rush; penalties; and turnovers. Based on these stats, I predict the outcome of the game and then compare to the actual outcome. This is one way we can learn just how heartbreaking the Prospect Bowl was for the Explorers.
Here we go.
Game 1. Dropbears @ Explorers
Advantage: +0.5 (home)
Total yards: +0.5
The Explorers put up 336 total yards compared to the Dropbears’ 291
Time of possession: +0.5
The Explorers controlled the ball 36:57 compared to 28:23 for the Dropbears.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers had the edge in the passing game with 155 total passing yards to the Dropbears’ 121. The Explorers also attempted more passes and were more efficient with them. The Explorers ended the game with slightly higher passing efficiency at 16/35 = 0.457 to the Dropbears’ 13/29 = 0.448 and average yards per pass at 4.4 compared to 4.2.
Running game domination: +0.5
The Explorers also had a slight edge on the ground, with 181 total rushing yards to 170 by the Dropbears. The Explorers were also more efficient with their rushing carries, with their higher total yards coming from 34 attempts for an average of 5.3 yards per carry compared to an average of 4.6 yards per carry over 37 attempts from the Dropbears.
Penalties: +0.5
The Explorers had a relatively clean game with only 3 penalties, but the penalties they did have were very costly in terms of yardage, amounting to 35 penalty yards. That was still less than the Dropbears who had 8 penalties for 40 yards.
Turnovers: -2
So up until this point, it looks like the hometown Explorers are a lock for the game, having controlled time of possession, put up more yards, and dominated both the passing and run games. However, the Explorers gave up a total of 4 turnovers in the game, with three interceptions and one lost fumble. This was far worse than the Dropbears who only gave up one interception the entire game.
Expected result based on total score: +1.5 = Likely Explorer victory
Actual result: Overtime loss
I don’t really know what to say for this except… OUCH.
Game 2. Explorers @ Bandits
Advantage: -0.5 (away)
Total yards: +0.5
The Explorers put up 375 total yards compared to the Bandits’ 302.
Time of possession: +0.5
The Explorers controlled the ball 34:03 compared to 25:57 for the Bandits.
Passing game domination: +1
The IA Kotone Shiomi had an incredible performance for the Explorers in their first away game of the tournament. The Explorers put up 278 passing yards, with 27 out of 39 attempts being completed. This amounted to a passing efficiency of 0.692. These were not all short check downs either, with average yards per pass of 7.1. The Bandits also had very good numbers in the passing game with 193 total passing yards, 16 of 27 competitions to attempts (for an efficiency of 0.293) and a similar 7.1 average yards per pass.
Running game domination: -0.5
So, while the Explorers had the clear edge in the passing game, the edge in the running game goes to the Bandits. The Bandits, while having a lower average yards per rush of 3.5 compared to the 6.1 average from Explorer Big Chungus, had 109 rushing yards and 31 rushing attempts to the Explorers’ 97 yards over 16 attempts.
Penalties: -0.5
While both teams had only 5 penalties in the game, the Explorers’ penalties cost them more yards, 35, compared to the Bandits’ 25.
Turnovers: -1
The Explorers were again worse off when it came to penalties, but the differential was not as bad as in Game 1. In this game, neither team had an interception, but the Explorers had two fumbles, one for a loss. While they were able to force one fumble against the Bandits, they weren’t able to recover it. So the game ended with 1 turnover for the Explorers and none for the Bandits.
Expected result based on total score: -0.5 = Somewhat likely Explorer loss
Actual result: Loss
So this loss wasn’t unexpected based on the numbers, but the Explorers put up a good fight with their best passing game performance of the tournament.
Game 4. Explorers @ Dropbears
Advantage: -0.5 (away)
Total yards: -0.5
This is the first game of the tournament in which the Explorers did not have the higher total yards. They put up only 302 yards to the Dropbears’ 445.
Time of possession: +0.5
Despite the Dropbears having more yards during the game, the Explorers’ had a slight edge on time of possession, controlling the ball 32:54 compared to 31:06 for the Dropbears.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers put up another exceptional game in the air. They finished the game had 250 passing yards to the Dropbears’ 177. These passing yards weren’t achieved with the highest efficiency, however, with only 24 completions from 55 attempts = 0.436 and an average yards per pass of 4.5. The Dropbears’ passing game made less of an impact moving them down the field, but was fairly efficient with 15 of 30 attempts completed = 0.500 and an average of 5.9 yards per pass.
Running game domination: -1
The Explorers were not able to get a running game going this game, with only 89 total running yards and an average of 4.9 yards per carry over 18 attempts. The Dropbears clearly had the edge in the run game, with 268 yards on the ground over 40 carriers (for an average of 6.7 yards per carry).
Penalties: -1
The Explorers had an ugly game when it came to penalties, getting 7 flags for a total of 55 penalty yards. This was a significant disadvantage compared to the home team Dropbears, who had only 3 penalties for 15 yards in the game.
Turnovers: +1.5
This is the first game of the tournament where the Explorers managed to keep hold of the ball, ending the game with no turnovers. Comparing this to the Dropbears’ three turnovers, including 1 fumble for a loss and 2 interceptions, this was a clear advantage for the Explorers.
Expected result: 0 = Any team’s game
Actual result: Overtime victory
This third game of the tournament really could have gone either way, with the home team Dropbears putting up significant yardage, especially on the ground, and having a healthy 14-6 lead at the half. The Explorers had difficulty in their run game and with penalties, but were able to gain yards through the air and capitalize on many Dropbears turnovers to close the lead and send the game to overtime. The Explorers were able to eek out the OT win, which went only so far in alleviating the sting of the home field OT loss in Game 1 against the same Dropbears team. No one can begrudge the Explorers their one victory of the tournament, despite the close team stats.
Game 6. Bandits @ Explorers
Advantage: +0.5 (home)
Total yards: +0.5
Again, the Explorers had the clear advantage in this game when it came to total yards. The home team put up 361 yards compared to the Bandits’ 276 yards.
Time of possession: +0.5
Again, the Explorers controlled time of possession for the game by a fairly healthy margin: 39:53 to 28:28.
Passing game domination: +1
The Explorers had the advantage in the passing game across all stats. They put up total of 186 passing yards, with an efficiency of 0.538 (21 completions over 39 attempts) and average yards per pass of 4.8. These numbers are all better than those of the Bandits, who put up only 156 yards in the air with an efficiency of 0.432 (only 16 completions over 37 attempts) and average yards per pass of 4.2.
Running game domination: +1
The Explorers also dominated the ground game, with 175 total running yards to the Bandits’ 120. The Explorers had more rushing attempts at 36 for an average of 4.9 yards per carry, while the Bandits ran only 29 running plays for an average of 4.1 yards per run.
Penalties: +1
The Explorers had a clean home game with only 4 flags for 25 yards. The Bandits struggled on the road when it came to penalties, getting 8 flags that totaled 61 penalty yards.
Turnovers: -1
In this final appearance of the tournament, the Explorers again found themselves at a disadvantage when it came to turnovers. The team gave up 3 interceptions and 1 fumble for a total of four turnovers, compared to two interceptions from the Bandits’ quarterback LeBron James III.
Expected result: +3.5 = Very likely Explorer victory
Actual result: Overtime loss (on a safety)
This final game of the tournament would determine whether the Explorers made it into the title game of the Prospect Bowl since their opponent, the Bandits, had already locked in their seed and the potential for an Explorers’ win to beat out the Dropbears’ 1-3-0 record. And the Explorers played to win, controlling the clock and dominating both the passing and running games despite some struggles with turnovers.
While the Bandits put up fewer stats, they made their drives count and scored a 4th quarter field goal to send the game to overtime. The Bandits received the ball to start OT, but the Explorers defense held. The teams traded punts, and then the Explorers had a new drive and a chance to win the game they had been dominating from the start. Instead, Kotone Shiomi was sacked in the endzone, resulting in a safety and a sudden death OT loss to end the tournament.
In summary, the Explorers put up some great stats throughout their Prospect Bowl tournament, being competitive in all of their games and sending three of the four into overtime. Yet, they weren’t quite able to win at home despite dominating the field when hosting both the Dropbears in Game 1 and the Bandits in Game 6. These two overtime losses were unexpected (based on the team stats) and even more heartbreaking because these were lost in front of family and friends on Mars.
While I’m not sure whether this will go down in the history books as one of the most heartbreaking Prospect Bowl, it leaves an entire generation of Mars football fans with souls crushed and an emerging underdog sentiment.
Because no one likes working with screenshots, team stats are available as a .csv file here along with the double round robin game results: https://github.com/Mojojojo-ISFL/S26-ProspectBowl.
![[Image: 63595_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/63595_s.gif)
