North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2073rd
  Defense+0.272nd
• 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.
  Offense44.7%69th
  Defense48.5%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4497th
  Defense+1.2841st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2395th
  Defense+0.301st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2555th
  Defense+0.3511th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%68th
  Defense53.5%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%80th
  Defense33.8%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3485th
  Defense3.466th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%54th
  Defense14.3%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%39th
  Defense11.2%1st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   CAL
2. L
   FIU
3. W
   LT
4. W
   ACU
5. L
   NAVY
6. W
   TEM
7. L
   TULN
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   UTSA
10. L
    SMU
11. W
    TLSA
12. W
    UAB

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

Players, 2023

1. Chandler RogersQB446 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 51st of 250 QBs
   1.45WAR0.67 to 2.21
2. Ayo AdeyiRB126 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 53rd of 383 RBs
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.47
3. Ja'Mori MaclinWR56 plays · +0.329 pts/play · 10th of 457 WRs
   0.35WAR0.20 to 0.49
4. Oscar Adaway IIIRB104 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 106th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.35
5. Stone EarleQB51 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 196th of 250 QBs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.28
6. Trey ClevelandWR25 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 140th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Damon Ward Jr.WR35 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 160th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
8. Noah RauschenbergPK15 plays · +0.350 pts/play · 38th of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47447497th of 130Roster talent: 474, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014093rd of 130Recruiting: 140, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%86th of 128Returning production: 42%, 86th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.784th of 130SP+ rating: −6.7, 84th 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, 2023

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 0.05 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 TLSAQ4 9:38 4th & 2 at UNT 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. at SMUQ2 0:09 4th & 7 at SMU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at NAVYQ4 7:07 4th & 10 at UNT 27, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs MEMQ2 3:23 4th & 2 at UNT 20, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at LTQ2 11:37 4th & 4 at LT 5, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at FIUQ4 4:14 4th & 5 at FIU 9, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs UABQ3 13:53 4th & 9 at UAB 45, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ACUQ3 15:00 4th & 6 at ACU 48, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

64th of 133 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

   CAL
2. L

   FIU
3. W

   LT
4. W

   ACU
5. L

   NAVY
6. W

   TEM
7. L

   TULN
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   UTSA
10. L

    SMU
11. W

    TLSA
12. W

    UAB

What moved it, 2023

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−0.17
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• CALL 21-58 vs CAL27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• FIUL 39-46 at FIU72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +1
• LTW 40-37 at LT35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ACUW 45-31 vs ACU85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• NAVYL 24-27 at NAVY35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• TEMW 45-14 vs TEM63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• TULNL 28-35 at TULN9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• MEML 42-45 vs MEM29% → 14%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −33, Clock −3
• UTSAL 29-37 vs UTSA26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• SMUL 21-45 at SMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• TLSAW 35-28 at TLSA60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• UABW 45-42 vs UAB58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, 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.