Houston

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.3393rd
  Defense+0.0947th
• 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.
  Offense53.3%98th
  Defense39.9%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.107th
  Defense+1.3226th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1769th
  Defense−0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5493rd
  Defense+0.2039th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.6%85th
  Defense44.4%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense48.9%99th
  Defense30.6%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5089th
  Defense2.6579th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.0%91st
  Defense19.4%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.5%95th
  Defense19.9%86th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   ORST
2. W
   SOU
3. L
   TTU
4. W
   GASO
5. W
   UCF
6. W
   KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston.

Players, 2026

1. Conner WeigmanQB185 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 2nd of 192 QBs
   0.72WAR0.42 to 0.99
2. Makhi HughesRB73 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 23rd of 320 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
3. Amare ThomasWR39 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 5th of 364 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
4. Re'Shaun Sanford IIRB68 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 48th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
5. Trent WalkerWR22 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 131st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Patrick OvermyerTE41 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 16th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12
7. Koby YoungWR18 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. DJ ButlerRB4 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 285th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69669657th of 138Roster talent: 696, 57th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819853rd of 138Recruiting: 198, 53rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%11th of 136Returning production: 81%, 11th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.2+15.219th of 138SP+ rating so far: +15.2, 19th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.01 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 TTUQ1 1:22 4th & 2 at HOU 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
2. vs ORSTQ4 0:46 4th & 11 at ORST 36, up 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
3. at KSUQ4 9:41 4th & 1 at HOU 21, up 26Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at GASOQ4 6:37 4th & 6 at GASO 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

33rd of 138 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

   ORST
2. W

   SOU
3. L

   TTU
4. W

   GASO
5. W

   UCF
6. W

   KSU

What moved it, 2026

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+0.82
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.24

Game by game

• ORSTW 33-20 vs ORST92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +1
• SOUW 77-6 vs SOU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TTUL 26-28 at TTU29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −1
• GASOW 42-28 at GASO90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• UCFW 27-17 vs UCF81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 35-16 at KSU43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +56, 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.