Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2080th
  Defense0.0082nd
• 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.
  Offense45.0%69th
  Defense39.6%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2679th
  Defense+1.2817th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1271st
  Defense−0.1197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3283rd
  Defense+0.1159th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%59th
  Defense44.7%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.0%70th
  Defense30.9%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9665th
  Defense2.5485th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%76th
  Defense24.2%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%88th
  Defense3.8%99th

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, 2015

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. W
   TNTC
2. W
   LOU
3. W
   TXST
4. W
   TLSA
5. W
   SMU
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   UCF
8. W
   VAN
9. W
   CIN
10. W
    MEM
11. L
    CONN
12. W
    NAVY
13. W
    TEM
14. W
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2015

1. Greg Ward Jr.QB453 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 9th of 205 QBs
   2.76WAR1.99 to 3.55
2. Kenneth FarrowRB144 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 32nd of 333 RBs
   0.43WAR0.30 to 0.54
3. Kyle PostmaQB80 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 155th of 205 QBs
   0.33WAR0.16 to 0.48
4. Demarcus AyersWR130 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 41st of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.41
5. Chance AllenWR76 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 61st of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.33
6. Ryan JacksonRB66 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 194th of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Steven DunbarWR49 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
8. Logan PiperP53 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 71st of 92 punters
   0.05WAR−0.04 to 0.13

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51151165th of 128Roster talent: 511, 65th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813878th of 128Recruiting: 138, 78th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%54th of 127Returning production: 70%, 54th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.2+6.253rd of 128SP+ rating: +6.2, 53rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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. vs CINQ4 2:10 4th & 3 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at LOUQ4 14:56 4th & 3 at LOU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 10:52 4th & 9 at MEM 19, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
4. vs CINQ4 12:51 4th & 2 at CIN 12, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at FSUQ2 11:32 4th & 1 at HOU 19, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs CINQ3 5:08 4th & 1 at HOU 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at TLSAQ3 7:17 4th & 4 at TLSA 4, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs CINQ1 4:12 4th & 1 at HOU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

3rd 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. W

   TNTC
2. W

   LOU
3. W

   TXST
4. W

   TLSA
5. W

   SMU
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   UCF
8. W

   VAN
9. W

   CIN
10. W

    MEM
11. L

    CONN
12. W

    NAVY
13. W

    TEM
14. W

    FSU

What moved it, 2015

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+3.36
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.50

Game by game

• TNTCW 52-24 vs TNTC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• LOUW 34-31 at LOU20% → 93%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• TXSTW 59-14 vs TXST85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17
• TLSAW 38-24 at TLSA71% → 98%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• SMUW 49-28 vs SMU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• TULNW 42-7 at TULN85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• UCFW 59-10 at UCF89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• VANW 34-0 vs VAN78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• CINW 33-30 vs CIN69% → 95%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• MEMW 35-34 vs MEM62% → 90%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• CONNL 17-20 at CONN78% → 9%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 52-31 vs NAVY56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• TEMW 24-13 vs TEM69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• FSUW 38-24 at FSU29% → 98%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +60, 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.