Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0319th
  Defense+0.1916th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%26th
  Defense46.7%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3173rd
  Defense+1.2458th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0533rd
  Defense+0.1814th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1733rd
  Defense+0.3217th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%45th
  Defense50.8%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%17th
  Defense37.3%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9730th
  Defense3.2127th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%14th
  Defense16.7%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%81st
  Defense12.8%5th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UTSA
2. L
   RICE
3. L
   TCU
4. W
   SHSU
5. L
   TTU
6. W
   WVU
7. L
   TEX
8. L
   KSU
9. W
   BAY
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    OKST
12. L
    UCF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2023

1. Donovan SmithQB466 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 41st of 250 QBs
   1.63WAR0.72 to 2.51
2. Joseph Manjack IVWR44 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 40th of 457 WRs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.34
3. Samuel BrownWR59 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 51st of 457 WRs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.37
4. Parker JenkinsRB98 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 136th of 383 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
5. Matthew GoldenWR41 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 117th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.24
6. Stacy SneedRB53 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 219th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Laine WilkinsP48 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 69th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
8. Stephon JohnsonWR23 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 260th of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067049th of 130Roster talent: 670, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217267th of 130Recruiting: 172, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%113th of 128Returning production: 23%, 113th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.8−7.892nd of 130SP+ rating: −7.8, 92nd 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, 2023

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 0.04 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 SHSUQ2 3:06 4th & 3 at SHSU 34, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs CINQ2 10:21 4th & 2 at HOU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at RICEQ3 7:23 4th & 8 at RICE 8, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs TCUQ1 4:39 4th & 2 at TCU 31, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs UTSAQ2 11:54 4th & 5 at UTSA 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs TCUQ3 0:45 4th & 10 at TCU 39, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at KSUQ3 12:04 4th & 2 at HOU 29, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at KSUQ3 12:04 4th & 2 at HOU 29, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

80th of 133 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

   UTSA
2. L

   RICE
3. L

   TCU
4. W

   SHSU
5. L

   TTU
6. W

   WVU
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   KSU
9. W

   BAY
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    OKST
12. L

    UCF

What moved it, 2023

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−1.01
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.21
• Timeouts+0.29
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.44

Game by game

• UTSAW 17-14 vs UTSA44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• RICEL 41-43 at RICE69% → 34%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −34: Timeouts +25, Clock −16
• TCUL 13-36 vs TCU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• SHSUW 38-7 vs SHSU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• TTUL 28-49 at TTU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• WVUW 41-39 vs WVU42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• TEXL 24-31 vs TEX5% → 5%Before kickoff −45 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• KSUL 0-41 at KSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• BAYW 25-24 at BAY37% → 49%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +11, Clock +3
• CINL 14-24 vs CIN60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• OKSTL 30-43 vs OKST32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• UCFL 13-27 at UCF14% → 2%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19

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.