Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.121st
  Defense+0.0762nd
• 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.
  Offense35.3%4th
  Defense39.6%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2022nd
  Defense+1.3132nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0510th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.141st
  Defense+0.1550th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%13th
  Defense43.2%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.2%1st
  Defense32.3%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.524th
  Defense2.8074th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%14th
  Defense19.7%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.9%4th
  Defense17.5%65th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UNLV
2. L
   OU
3. W
   RICE
4. L
   CIN
5. L
   ISU
6. W
   TCU
7. L
   KU
8. W
   UTAH
9. W
   KSU
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    BAY
12. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2024

1. Zeon Chriss-GremillionQB199 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 91st of 232 QBs
   0.99WAR0.58 to 1.42
2. Donovan SmithQB163 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 117th of 232 QBs
   0.61WAR0.35 to 0.87
3. Re'Shaun Sanford IIRB90 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 161st of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.24
4. Stacy SneedRB71 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 189th of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Liam DoughertyP54 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 26th of 106 punters
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.22
6. Joseph Manjack IVWR17 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 166th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Stephon JohnsonWR30 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 263rd of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.03 to 0.11
8. Maliq CarrTE16 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 80th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64764766th of 131Roster talent: 647, 66th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917964th of 131Recruiting: 179, 64th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%29th of 130Returning production: 64%, 29th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.2−8.299th of 131SP+ rating: −8.2, 99th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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 UTAHQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at UTAH 25, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.5 pts
2. vs UTAHQ4 5:01 4th & 1 at HOU 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
3. vs KSUQ4 4:36 4th & 6 at HOU 46, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
4. vs KSUQ4 0:45 4th & 2 at KSU 46, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
5. vs KUQ4 8:26 4th & 15 at KU 30, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs BAYQ4 14:52 4th & 4 at BAY 6, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs KSUQ2 8:37 4th & 4 at KSU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs UNLVQ4 1:00 4th & 1 at UNLV 2, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

67th of 134 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

   UNLV
2. L

   OU
3. W

   RICE
4. L

   CIN
5. L

   ISU
6. W

   TCU
7. L

   KU
8. W

   UTAH
9. W

   KSU
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    BAY
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2024

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−2.30
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.10

Game by game

• UNLVL 7-27 vs UNLV62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• OUL 12-16 at OU4% → 10%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• RICEW 33-7 vs RICE67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −1
• CINL 0-34 at CIN44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −43, Clock +1
• ISUL 0-20 vs ISU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• TCUW 30-19 at TCU14% → 97%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• KUL 14-42 vs KU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +1
• UTAHW 17-14 vs UTAH42% → 9%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• KSUW 24-19 vs KSU25% → 65%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +6, Possession & field position −1
• ARIZL 3-27 at ARIZ49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −46, Clock +1
• BAYL 10-20 vs BAY34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• BYUL 18-30 at BYU23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1

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.