Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1257th
  Defense+0.0464th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%61st
  Defense43.3%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2571st
  Defense+1.0692nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0444th
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2162nd
  Defense+0.1351st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%60th
  Defense48.6%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%53rd
  Defense32.6%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8546th
  Defense2.7070th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%48th
  Defense21.5%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%45th
  Defense16.3%51st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ARIZ
2. W
   RICE
3. L
   TTU
4. W
   TEM
5. W
   SMU
6. L
   TLSA
7. L
   MEM
8. W
   USF
9. W
   ECU
10. L
    TULN
11. W
    NAVY
12. L
    FRES

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2017

1. D'Eriq KingQB236 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 83rd of 226 QBs
   0.93WAR0.55 to 1.30
2. Kyle PostmaQB191 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 110th of 226 QBs
   0.67WAR0.36 to 1.01
3. Kyle AllenQB98 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 161st of 226 QBs
   0.28WAR0.13 to 0.45
4. Duke CatalonRB159 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 111th of 352 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.40
5. Steven DunbarWR102 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 14th of 426 WRs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.37
6. Dillon BirdenRB70 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 144th of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
7. Linell BonnerWR85 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 48th of 426 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
8. Mulbah CarRB70 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 208th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55955957th of 130Roster talent: 559, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915970th of 130Recruiting: 159, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%100th of 128Returning production: 40%, 100th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.743rd of 128SP+ rating: +7.7, 43rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.26 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 ARIZQ4 2:59 4th & 2 at ARIZ 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. vs MEMQ4 3:17 4th & 1 at HOU 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
3. at USFQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at HOU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
4. vs NAVYQ4 7:57 4th & 1 at NAVY 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
5. vs TTUQ3 5:13 4th & 6 at TTU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs SMUQ4 7:16 4th & 1 at SMU 46, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs TTUQ3 2:35 4th & 4 at TTU 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at ARIZQ4 13:40 4th & 3 at HOU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

100th of 130 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

   ARIZ
2. W

   RICE
3. L

   TTU
4. W

   TEM
5. W

   SMU
6. L

   TLSA
7. L

   MEM
8. W

   USF
9. W

   ECU
10. L

    TULN
11. W

    NAVY
12. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2017

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−0.60
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.68

Game by game

• ARIZW 19-16 at ARIZ49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• RICEW 38-3 vs RICE94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• TTUL 24-27 vs TTU67% → 5%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• TEMW 20-13 at TEM79% → 91%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• SMUW 35-22 vs SMU73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• TLSAL 17-45 at TLSA84% → 0%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −66, Possession & field position +1
• MEML 38-42 vs MEM47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• USFW 28-24 at USF23% → 84%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• ECUW 52-27 vs ECU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• TULNL 17-20 at TULN76% → 12%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 24-14 vs NAVY71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• FRESL 27-33 vs FRES55% → 5%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −4

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.