North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2179th
  Defense+0.289th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%75th
  Defense46.6%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3990th
  Defense+1.3816th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1678th
  Defense+0.304th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2768th
  Defense+0.2533rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%71st
  Defense52.4%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%80th
  Defense32.5%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2790th
  Defense3.424th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%94th
  Defense15.1%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.0%94th
  Defense12.5%9th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   HCU
2. L
   SMU
3. L
   USM
4. L
   CLT
5. W
   MTSU
6. W
   RICE
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   LT
9. W
   UTEP
10. L
    APP

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

Players, 2020

1. Jason BeanQB155 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 87th of 212 QBs
   0.37WAR0.02 to 0.70
2. DeAndre TorreyRB94 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 76th of 338 RBs
   0.35WAR0.28 to 0.43
3. Austin AuneQB151 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 100th of 212 QBs
   0.33WAR0.05 to 0.59
4. Oscar Adaway IIIRB73 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 105th of 338 RBs
   0.29WAR0.24 to 0.35
5. Jaelon DardenWR96 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 5th of 409 WRs
   0.26WAR0.11 to 0.41
6. Tre SiggersRB66 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 136th of 338 RBs
   0.24WAR0.18 to 0.31
7. Deonte SimpsonWR33 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 109th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Nic SmithRB32 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 249th of 338 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41641688th of 127Roster talent: 416, 88th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014089th of 127Recruiting: 140, 89th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%92nd of 127Returning production: 49%, 92nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.0−8.0102nd of 127SP+ rating: −8.0, 102nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 RICEQ4 13:03 4th & 2 at RICE 13, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. vs LTQ4 4:56 4th & 10 at LT 37, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at UTEPQ2 4:43 4th & 2 at UTEP 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at MTSUQ3 11:39 4th & 16 at MTSU 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. vs CLTQ2 3:21 4th & 1 at UNT 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs HCUQ2 7:54 4th & 3 at HCU 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs LTQ4 1:43 4th & 14 at UNT 11, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at UTEPQ4 1:26 4th & 4 at UTEP 31, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

76th of 127 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

   HCU
2. L

   SMU
3. L

   USM
4. L

   CLT
5. W

   MTSU
6. W

   RICE
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   LT
9. W

   UTEP
10. L

    APP

What moved it, 2020

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−0.65
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.36

Game by game

• HCUW 57-31 vs HCU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• SMUL 35-65 vs SMU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• USML 31-41 vs USM53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• CLTL 21-49 vs CLT40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• MTSUW 52-35 at MTSU37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• RICEW 27-17 vs RICE56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −1
• UTSAL 17-49 at UTSA44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +1
• LTL 31-42 vs LT48% → 3%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• UTEPW 45-43 at UTEP30% → 94%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +52, Clock +4
• APPL 28-56 vs APP8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13

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.