North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1465th
  Defense+0.1627th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%91st
  Defense42.6%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2051st
  Defense+1.2819th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0755th
  Defense+0.1322nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2266th
  Defense+0.2228th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%65th
  Defense46.8%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.6%98th
  Defense33.3%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9356th
  Defense2.9047th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%19th
  Defense17.5%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense12.9%9th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   LAM
2. L
   SMU
3. L
   IOWA
4. W
   UAB
5. W
   USM
6. W
   UTSA
7. L
   FAU
8. W
   ODU
9. W
   LT
10. W
    UTEP
11. W
    ARMY
12. W
    RICE
13. L
    FAU
14. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2017

1. Mason FineQB453 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 37th of 226 QBs
   1.59WAR0.83 to 2.41
2. Jeffery WilsonRB190 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 17th of 352 RBs
   0.61WAR0.41 to 0.79
3. Nic SmithRB116 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 126th of 352 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.34
4. Jalen GuytonWR63 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 81st of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
5. Michael LawrenceWR53 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 89th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Rico Bussey Jr.WR58 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 136th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Trevor MoorePK13 plays · +0.433 pts/play · 56th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.15
8. Turner SmileyWR33 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 282nd of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  303303116th of 130Roster talent: 303, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116106th of 130Recruiting: 116, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%102nd of 128Returning production: 39%, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.585th of 128SP+ rating: −4.5, 85th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.17 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 UABQ4 14:12 4th & 1 at UAB 23, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs ODUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at ODU 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at RICEQ3 3:30 4th & 2 at RICE 2, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs UTSAQ4 10:05 4th & 4 at UTSA 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at LTQ4 13:35 4th & 2 at UNT 44, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at USMQ3 9:01 4th & 3 at USM 3, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at IOWAQ2 3:15 4th & 1 at UNT 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at IOWAQ3 2:06 4th & 8 at IOWA 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

8th of 130 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. W

   LAM
2. L

   SMU
3. L

   IOWA
4. W

   UAB
5. W

   USM
6. W

   UTSA
7. L

   FAU
8. W

   ODU
9. W

   LT
10. W

    UTEP
11. W

    ARMY
12. W

    RICE
13. L

    FAU
14. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2017

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+1.44
• Possession & field position+0.09
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• LAMW 59-14 vs LAM89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• SMUL 32-54 at SMU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• IOWAL 14-31 at IOWA10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• UABW 46-43 vs UAB75% → 95%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• USMW 43-28 at USM25% → 99%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• UTSAW 29-26 vs UTSA36% → 88%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +2
• FAUL 31-69 at FAU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• ODUW 45-38 vs ODU77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• LTW 24-23 at LT47% → 87%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• UTEPW 45-10 vs UTEP94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• ARMYW 52-49 vs ARMY51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +1
• RICEW 30-14 at RICE80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• FAUL 17-41 at FAU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• TROYL 30-50 vs TROY29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2

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.