North Texas

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+0.3696th
  Defense+0.1527th
• 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.
  Offense48.1%77th
  Defense44.3%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4296th
  Defense+1.2158th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1872nd
  Defense+0.0163rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5494th
  Defense+0.3910th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.0%83rd
  Defense48.6%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.
  Offense35.6%74th
  Defense33.0%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1153rd
  Defense2.6678th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%61st
  Defense17.6%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.3%92nd
  Defense16.8%62nd

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 North Texas 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
   IU
2. W
   UNLV
3. L
   TXST
4. W
   HCU
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   CLT

Bars above the line: better than expected for North Texas.

Players, 2026

1. Tayven JacksonQB137 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 30th of 192 QBs
   0.42WAR0.18 to 0.64
2. Jahiem WhiteRB80 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 22nd of 320 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
3. Corri MillinerWR21 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 103rd of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
4. Max ReeseTE10 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 51st of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
5. Brec LongTE10 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 76th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
6. Ian RatliffP7 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 51st of 84 punters
   0.01WAR0.00 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 North Texas'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.
  60260295th of 138Roster talent: 602, 95th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  142142111th of 138Recruiting: 142, 111th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%129th of 136Returning production: 3%, 129th 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.
  −1.0−1.076th of 138SP+ rating so far: −1.0, 76th 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 North Texas'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 TXSTQ3 7:30 4th & 11 at TXST 39, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
2. at TXSTQ4 14:20 4th & 4 at TXST 14, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
3. at IUQ2 9:48 4th & 3 at IU 29, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
4. vs CLTQ4 8:24 4th & 3 at CLT 3, up 37Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs CLTQ1 10:52 4th & 3 at CLT 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs CLTQ2 0:20 4th & 1 at CLT 20, up 23Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs CLTQ2 2:49 4th & 4 at UNT 35, up 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at TLSAQ2 7:22 4th & 5 at TLSA 24, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

18th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up North Texas's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   IU
2. W

   UNLV
3. L

   TXST
4. W

   HCU
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   CLT

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at North Texas'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+0.66
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• IUL 16-52 at IU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• UNLVW 44-6 vs UNLV37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56
• TXSTL 35-49 at TXST31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• HCUW 63-14 vs HCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TLSAW 45-44 at TLSA47% → 77%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +20
• CLTW 50-10 vs CLT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9

Points of win probability, from North Texas's side.

Closest call

UNT 33-30 WMU (2025) - North Texas dropped to a 1.3% win probability before pulling it out.