Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2795th
  Defense+0.1724th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%69th
  Defense45.7%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4799th
  Defense+1.2338th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1984th
  Defense+0.1619th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3791st
  Defense+0.1938th
• 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%53rd
  Defense50.6%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.2%84th
  Defense35.1%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1582nd
  Defense2.8751st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%69th
  Defense18.6%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%65th
  Defense16.5%57th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2018

1. D'Eriq KingQB377 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 9th of 225 QBs
   2.26WAR1.62 to 2.95
2. Patrick CarrRB120 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 69th of 351 RBs
   0.44WAR0.35 to 0.53
3. Marquez StevensonWR101 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 41st of 434 WRs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.35
4. Mulbah CarRB58 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 219th of 351 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.23
5. Clayton TuneQB63 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 196th of 225 QBs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.28
6. Courtney LarkWR45 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Romello BrookerTE38 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 12th of 204 TEs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Dane RoyP46 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 31st of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57757751st of 130Roster talent: 577, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16516567th of 130Recruiting: 165, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%112th of 129Returning production: 32%, 112th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.3+2.364th of 130SP+ rating: +2.3, 64th of 130 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, 2018

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.05 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 TTUQ3 10:49 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs TEMQ4 8:31 4th & 9 at TEM 33, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at RICEQ2 1:47 4th & 2 at HOU 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at MEMQ4 4:17 4th & 4 at MEM 6, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at MEMQ4 4:17 4th & 10 at MEM 23, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs ARIZQ2 8:17 4th & 3 at ARIZ 46, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TTUQ3 7:46 4th & 8 at TTU 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at MEMQ4 5:52 4th & 18 at HOU 34, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

92nd 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

   RICE
2. W

   ARIZ
3. L

   TTU
4. W

   TXSO
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   NAVY
8. W

   USF
9. L

   SMU
10. L

    TEM
11. W

    TULN
12. L

    MEM
13. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2018

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−0.14
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• RICEW 45-27 at RICE94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• ARIZW 45-18 vs ARIZ56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −1
• TTUL 49-63 at TTU46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• TXSOW 70-14 vs TXSO100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TLSAW 41-26 vs TLSA86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 42-20 at ECU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• NAVYW 49-36 at NAVY76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• USFW 57-36 vs USF75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• SMUL 31-45 at SMU80% → 1%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −2
• TEML 49-59 vs TEM58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• TULNW 48-17 vs TULN65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35
• MEML 31-52 at MEM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• ARMYL 14-70 at ARMY33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34

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.