Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1144th
  Defense+0.1826th
• 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.
  Offense42.4%47th
  Defense40.7%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2649th
  Defense+1.463rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0748th
  Defense+0.1236th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1447th
  Defense+0.2530th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%33rd
  Defense46.4%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%74th
  Defense29.5%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9764th
  Defense2.5683rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%59th
  Defense26.3%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%46th
  Defense18.0%68th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   TULN
2. L
   BYU
3. W
   NAVY
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   CIN
6. W
   USF
7. L
   MEM
8. L
   HAW

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2020

1. Clayton TuneQB298 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 31st of 212 QBs
   0.86WAR0.29 to 1.36
2. Kyle PorterRB113 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 57th of 338 RBs
   0.40WAR0.32 to 0.49
3. Mulbah CarRB53 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 187th of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
4. Keith CorbinWR30 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 161st of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
5. Nathaniel DellWR39 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Marquez StevensonWR26 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Tre'Von BradleyWR24 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 254th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Bryson SmithWR21 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 294th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60860853rd of 127Roster talent: 608, 53rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216271st of 127Recruiting: 162, 71st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%31st of 127Returning production: 78%, 31st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.3+3.351st of 127SP+ rating: +3.3, 51st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 HAWQ4 3:26 4th & 6 at HAW 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
2. vs HAWQ2 4:27 4th & 1 at HOU 23, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. vs UCFQ2 10:59 4th & 3 at HOU 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at MEMQ2 8:14 4th & 4 at MEM 12, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs HAWQ2 11:22 4th & 8 at HAW 41, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs BYUQ4 1:53 4th & 11 at HOU 17, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs HAWQ4 0:24 4th & 20 at HOU 41, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at NAVYQ2 6:37 4th & 6 at NAVY 28, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

121st of 127 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

   TULN
2. L

   BYU
3. W

   NAVY
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   CIN
6. W

   USF
7. L

   MEM
8. L

   HAW

What moved it, 2020

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−1.46
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• TULNW 49-31 vs TULN70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• BYUL 26-43 vs BYU42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• NAVYW 37-21 at NAVY87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• UCFL 21-44 vs UCF40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• CINL 10-38 at CIN19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• USFW 56-21 vs USF84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• MEML 27-30 at MEM66% → 5%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• HAWL 14-28 vs HAW72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −62, 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.