Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1856th
  Defense−0.0496th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%46th
  Defense34.9%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3784th
  Defense+1.3615th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0730th
  Defense0.0090th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2867th
  Defense−0.0598th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%34th
  Defense41.0%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%81st
  Defense23.5%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8119th
  Defense2.6394th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%3rd
  Defense19.8%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%31st
  Defense21.3%99th

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, 2021

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. L
   TTU
2. W
   RICE
3. W
   GRAM
4. W
   NAVY
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   ECU
8. W
   SMU
9. W
   USF
10. W
    TEM
11. W
    MEM
12. W
    CONN
13. L
    CIN
14. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2021

1. Clayton TuneQB454 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 15th of 219 QBs
   2.41WAR1.60 to 3.22
2. Alton McCaskillRB167 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 80th of 387 RBs
   0.45WAR0.32 to 0.59
3. Nathaniel DellWR91 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 8th of 474 WRs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.49
4. Ta'Zhawn HenryRB112 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 152nd of 387 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.41
5. Mulbah CarRB41 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 265th of 387 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Jeremy SingletonWR38 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 227th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Jake HerslowWR28 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 250th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.12
8. KeSean CarterWR29 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 256th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57157166th of 130Roster talent: 571, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016074th of 130Recruiting: 160, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%76th of 128Returning production: 67%, 76th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.9+10.931st of 130SP+ rating: +10.9, 31st 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.10 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 MEMQ4 7:01 4th & 4 at MEM 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. vs TTUQ4 4:57 4th & 5 at HOU 18, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at CINQ2 6:27 4th & 3 at CIN 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs MEMQ4 3:24 4th & 2 at MEM 17, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at USFQ2 14:52 4th & 2 at USF 2, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs ECUQ4 9:39 4th & 2 at ECU 29, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ECUQ3 6:42 4th & 1 at HOU 24, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TULNQ4 6:42 4th & 3 at HOU 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

10th 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. L

   TTU
2. W

   RICE
3. W

   GRAM
4. W

   NAVY
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   ECU
8. W

   SMU
9. W

   USF
10. W

    TEM
11. W

    MEM
12. W

    CONN
13. L

    CIN
14. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2021

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+2.41
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• TTUL 21-38 vs TTU56% → 2%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −55, Clock −1
• RICEW 44-7 at RICE70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36
• GRAMW 45-0 vs GRAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NAVYW 28-20 vs NAVY92% → 96%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +1
• TLSAW 45-10 at TLSA43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +58, Clock +1
• TULNW 40-22 at TULN65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• ECUW 31-24 vs ECU80% → 80%Before kickoff +30 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −17
• SMUW 44-37 vs SMU47% → 87%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −4
• USFW 54-42 at USF79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• TEMW 37-8 at TEM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• MEMW 31-13 vs MEM75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 45-17 at CONN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• CINL 20-35 at CIN22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• AUBW 17-13 at AUB51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, 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.