North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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−0.015th
  Defense+0.1924th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%3rd
  Defense45.6%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1641st
  Defense+1.1664th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0117th
  Defense+0.1624th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.012nd
  Defense+0.2531st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.6%6th
  Defense50.3%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%9th
  Defense34.6%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.335th
  Defense2.8156th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%20th
  Defense18.0%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.1%6th
  Defense5.5%99th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   TEX
2. W
   SMU
3. L
   LT
4. W
   NICH
5. L
   IU
6. L
   UAB
7. L
   USM
8. L
   RICE
9. W
   FAU
10. L
    UTEP
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    UTSA

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

Players, 2014

1. Andrew McNultyQB158 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 141st of 199 QBs
   0.51WAR0.30 to 0.79
2. Dajon WilliamsQB62 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 163rd of 199 QBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.30
3. Carlos HarrisWR72 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 84th of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.29
4. Reggie PegramRB100 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 144th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
5. Josh GreerQB44 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 170th of 199 QBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
6. Antoinne JimmersonRB68 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 181st of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Eric KeenaP31 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 39th of 94 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
8. Jeffrey WilsonRB32 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 227th of 350 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.11

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.09 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 FIUQ3 12:28 4th & 1 at UNT 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs SMUQ2 3:57 4th & 3 at SMU 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs USMQ4 2:20 4th & 28 at UNT 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UTSAQ4 4:18 4th & 10 at UNT 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs SMUQ3 12:03 4th & 2 at SMU 45, up 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs FIUQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at UNT 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs SMUQ1 6:15 4th & 5 at SMU 35, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at RICEQ2 4:04 4th & 3 at UNT 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

115th of 128 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   TEX
2. W

   SMU
3. L

   LT
4. W

   NICH
5. L

   IU
6. L

   UAB
7. L

   USM
8. L

   RICE
9. W

   FAU
10. L

    UTEP
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    UTSA

What moved it, 2014

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−1.88
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• TEXL 7-38 at TEX4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• SMUW 43-6 vs SMU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39
• LTL 21-42 vs LT56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• NICHW 77-3 vs NICH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• IUL 24-49 at IU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• UABL 21-56 at UAB39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Clock +1
• USML 20-30 vs USM72% → 3%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• RICEL 21-41 at RICE18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21
• UTEPL 17-35 at UTEP25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Clock +2
• FIUW 17-14 vs FIU48% → 88%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +3
• UTSAL 27-34 at UTSA33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1

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.