Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2068th
  Defense+0.0976th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.6%55th
  Defense42.0%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2672nd
  Defense+1.0693rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2287th
  Defense+0.0762nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1840th
  Defense+0.1376th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%64th
  Defense46.5%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%36th
  Defense32.5%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7435th
  Defense3.0726th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%25th
  Defense17.2%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.0%8th
  Defense3.1%95th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2014

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Houston allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   UTSA
2. W
   GRAM
3. L
   BYU
4. W
   UNLV
5. L
   UCF
6. W
   MEM
7. W
   TEM
8. W
   USF
9. L
   TULN
10. W
    TLSA
11. W
    SMU
12. L
    CIN
13. W
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2014

1. Greg Ward Jr.QB355 plays · +0.308 pts/play · 24th of 199 QBs
   2.05WAR1.50 to 2.59
2. Kenneth FarrowRB162 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 24th of 350 RBs
   0.46WAR0.33 to 0.58
3. John O'KornQB154 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 151st of 199 QBs
   0.33WAR0.11 to 0.56
4. Ryan JacksonRB115 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 127th of 350 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
5. Markeith AmblesWR39 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 125th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. Demarcus AyersWR42 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 238th of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
7. Kyle BullardPK16 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 79th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Deontay GreenberryWR103 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 347th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.08 to 0.20

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Houston's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Houston's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.17 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at CINQ4 0:00 4th & 1 at CIN 11, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.2 pts
2. at BYUQ3 11:22 4th & 4 at BYU 39, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs UCFQ3 10:36 4th & 2 at HOU 19, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs TEMQ2 3:04 4th & 3 at HOU 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs TEMQ3 5:13 4th & 3 at HOU 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at BYUQ3 7:06 4th & 2 at HOU 27, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at BYUQ4 7:18 4th & 2 at BYU 19, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at USFQ2 6:00 4th & 1 at HOU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

96th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Houston's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UTSA
2. W

   GRAM
3. L

   BYU
4. W

   UNLV
5. L

   UCF
6. W

   MEM
7. W

   TEM
8. W

   USF
9. L

   TULN
10. W

    TLSA
11. W

    SMU
12. L

    CIN
13. W

    PITT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Houston's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.09
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• UTSAL 7-27 vs UTSA83% → 0%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −67, Clock −5
• GRAMW 47-0 vs GRAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BYUL 25-33 at BYU19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 47-14 vs UNLV91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• UCFL 12-17 vs UCF61% → 6%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• MEMW 28-24 at MEM38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock +4
• TEMW 31-10 vs TEM73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• USFW 27-3 at USF73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• TULNL 24-31 vs TULN87% → 14%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• TLSAW 38-28 vs TLSA93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +14
• SMUW 35-9 at SMU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• CINL 31-38 at CIN35% → 11%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• PITTW 35-34 at PITT45% → 93%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Houston's side.

Closest call

HOU 35-34 PITT (2014) - Houston dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.