Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0732nd
  Defense+0.0467th
• 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.
  Offense41.9%46th
  Defense41.5%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2137th
  Defense+1.1295th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense+0.0365th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2670th
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%53rd
  Defense49.2%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%23rd
  Defense25.1%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.619th
  Defense2.7077th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%21st
  Defense19.9%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%73rd
  Defense16.2%58th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SFA
2. W
   RICE
3. W
   COLO
4. W
   ORST
5. L
   TTU
6. W
   OKST
7. W
   ARIZ
8. W
   ASU
9. L
   WVU
10. W
    UCF
11. L
    TCU
12. W
    BAY
13. W
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2025

1. Conner WeigmanQB461 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 18th of 231 QBs
   1.96WAR0.97 to 2.79
2. Dean ConnorsRB200 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 26th of 365 RBs
   0.37WAR0.24 to 0.50
3. Amare ThomasWR88 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 20th of 451 WRs
   0.32WAR0.13 to 0.51
4. Tanner KoziolTE75 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 2nd of 213 TEs
   0.24WAR0.10 to 0.38
5. DJ ButlerRB65 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 210th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
6. Ethan SanchezPK20 plays · +0.315 pts/play · 14th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Stacy SneedRB39 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 260th of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Harvey Broussard IIIWR24 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 304th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65765766th of 134Roster talent: 657, 66th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119154th of 134Recruiting: 191, 54th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%10th of 132Returning production: 68%, 10th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.4+7.440th of 134SP+ rating: +7.4, 40th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 UCFQ4 2:31 4th & 4 at UCF 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs LSUQ3 1:29 4th & 2 at HOU 19, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at OKSTQ2 0:02 4th & 17 at OKST 41, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
4. at BAYQ3 9:30 4th & 12 at BAY 35, up 15Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. at ORSTQ4 11:17 4th & 2 at HOU 25, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TCUQ3 10:09 4th & 3 at HOU 18, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at ASUQ4 7:15 4th & 13 at ASU 36, up 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at OKSTQ3 8:27 4th & 3 at OKST 12, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

15th of 136 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

   SFA
2. W

   RICE
3. W

   COLO
4. W

   ORST
5. L

   TTU
6. W

   OKST
7. W

   ARIZ
8. W

   ASU
9. L

   WVU
10. W

    UCF
11. L

    TCU
12. W

    BAY
13. W

    LSU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.44
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.43
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• SFAW 27-0 vs SFA95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts −2
• RICEW 35-9 at RICE86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20
• COLOW 36-20 vs COLO69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• ORSTW 27-24 at ORST81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• TTUL 11-35 vs TTU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• OKSTW 39-17 at OKST87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +4
• ARIZW 31-28 vs ARIZ46% → 64%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts −47
• ASUW 24-16 at ASU31% → 97%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• WVUL 35-45 vs WVU84% → 4%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −60, Clock −4
• UCFW 30-27 at UCF54% → 94%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• TCUL 14-17 vs TCU47% → 7%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• BAYW 31-24 at BAY40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• LSUW 38-35 vs LSU50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37

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.