Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1356th
  Defense+0.0183rd
• 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%64th
  Defense37.6%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.2624th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0435th
  Defense−0.0792nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2366th
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%55th
  Defense43.2%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.0%83rd
  Defense28.3%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6513th
  Defense2.2697th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%21st
  Defense26.1%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense20.8%93rd

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, 2016

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
   OU
2. W
   LAM
3. W
   CIN
4. W
   TXST
5. W
   CONN
6. L
   NAVY
7. W
   TLSA
8. L
   SMU
9. W
   UCF
10. W
    TULN
11. W
    LOU
12. L
    MEM
13. L
    SDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2016

1. Greg Ward Jr.QB540 plays · +0.315 pts/play · 3rd of 218 QBs
   3.19WAR2.33 to 3.94
2. Linell BonnerWR99 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 32nd of 417 WRs
   0.29WAR0.16 to 0.44
3. Chance AllenWR62 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 52nd of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
4. Duke CatalonRB156 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 161st of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.34
5. Ty CummingsPK16 plays · +0.476 pts/play · 28th of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
6. Steven DunbarWR61 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Tyler McCloskeyTE21 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 40th of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
8. D'Eriq KingQB18 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 213th of 218 QBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57357352nd of 128Roster talent: 573, 52nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915969th of 128Recruiting: 159, 69th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%52nd of 128Returning production: 71%, 52nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.1+10.139th of 128SP+ rating: +10.1, 39th 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 TLSAQ4 1:39 4th & 5 at TLSA 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at SMUQ4 9:50 4th & 2 at SMU 2, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at NAVYQ4 1:57 4th & 12 at NAVY 17, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs LOUQ2 13:14 4th & 13 at LOU 44, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
5. vs TLSAQ2 1:58 4th & 1 at HOU 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at SDSUQ2 10:54 4th & 1 at HOU 22, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at SMUQ4 4:42 4th & 14 at HOU 15, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at CINQ2 2:58 4th & 4 at CIN 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

89th 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

   OU
2. W

   LAM
3. W

   CIN
4. W

   TXST
5. W

   CONN
6. L

   NAVY
7. W

   TLSA
8. L

   SMU
9. W

   UCF
10. W

    TULN
11. W

    LOU
12. L

    MEM
13. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.49
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.14

Game by game

• OUW 33-23 vs OU23% → 97%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +1
• LAMW 42-0 vs LAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CINW 40-16 at CIN73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• TXSTW 64-3 at TXST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• CONNW 42-14 vs CONN94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• NAVYL 40-46 at NAVY91% → 11%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −3
• TLSAW 38-31 vs TLSA94% → 84%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −10: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position −2
• SMUL 16-38 at SMU93% → 0%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −93: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts −2
• UCFW 31-24 vs UCF79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• TULNW 30-18 vs TULN94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 36-10 vs LOU13% → 100%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts +1
• MEML 44-48 at MEM64% → 21%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −3
• SDSUL 10-34 at SDSU63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −1

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.