North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1237th
  Defense+0.1543rd
• 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.
  Offense40.5%28th
  Defense38.2%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2539th
  Defense+1.521st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2075th
  Defense+0.0667th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1017th
  Defense+0.3022nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%23rd
  Defense41.2%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%40th
  Defense32.5%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2877th
  Defense2.8075th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%81st
  Defense18.7%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%96th
  Defense17.3%62nd

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, 2021

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
   NWST
2. L
   SMU
3. L
   UAB
4. L
   LT
5. L
   MIZ
6. L
   MRSH
7. L
   LIB
8. W
   RICE
9. W
   USM
10. W
    UTEP
11. W
    FIU
12. W
    UTSA
13. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2021

1. Austin AuneQB278 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 91st of 219 QBs
   1.00WAR0.54 to 1.47
2. DeAndre TorreyRB166 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 56th of 387 RBs
   0.55WAR0.36 to 0.72
3. Isaiah JohnsonRB63 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 178th of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
4. Ikaika RagsdaleRB57 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 198th of 387 RBs
   0.23WAR0.18 to 0.29
5. Ayo AdeyiRB54 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 228th of 387 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
6. Roderic BurnsWR49 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 147th of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
7. Bernardo RodriguezP49 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 55th of 101 punters
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.21
8. Ethan MooneyPK8 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 116th of 128 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49649680th of 130Roster talent: 496, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115181st of 130Recruiting: 151, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%105th of 128Returning production: 50%, 105th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.5−6.594th of 130SP+ rating: −6.5, 94th of 130 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, 2021

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 0.01 of the 0.08 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 SMUQ3 12:08 4th & 1 at UNT 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at RICEQ4 10:34 4th & 6 at RICE 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. vs LIBQ4 14:54 4th & 7 at LIB 42, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at LTQ4 5:39 4th & 7 at LT 8, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at FIUQ1 4:29 4th & 1 at UNT 10, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at LTQ3 2:42 4th & 9 at LT 48, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at M-OHQ4 9:18 4th & 4 at M-OH 4, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at M-OHQ3 7:02 4th & 4 at UNT 49, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

33rd 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

   NWST
2. L

   SMU
3. L

   UAB
4. L

   LT
5. L

   MIZ
6. L

   MRSH
7. L

   LIB
8. W

   RICE
9. W

   USM
10. W

    UTEP
11. W

    FIU
12. W

    UTSA
13. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2021

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+0.30
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• NWSTW 44-14 vs NWST92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• SMUL 12-35 at SMU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• UABL 6-40 vs UAB21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• LTL 17-24 at LT26% → 7%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −2
• MIZL 35-48 at MIZ10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15
• MRSHL 21-49 vs MRSH23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• LIBL 26-35 vs LIB8% → 7%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• RICEW 30-24 at RICE48% → 49%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +11, Clock +3
• USMW 38-14 at USM67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• UTEPW 20-17 vs UTEP51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• FIUW 49-7 at FIU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• UTSAW 45-23 vs UTSA24% → 100%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +55, Clock +1
• M-OHL 14-27 at M-OH39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −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.