North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1452nd
  Defense+0.1725th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%44th
  Defense44.6%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4798th
  Defense+1.2748th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1054th
  Defense+0.1718th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1641st
  Defense+0.2132nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%31st
  Defense50.1%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%74th
  Defense32.1%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.638th
  Defense3.2424th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%16th
  Defense14.9%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%57th
  Defense11.5%2nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   USA
2. W
   SFA
3. L
   TTU
4. W
   WYO
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   FAU
7. L
   MEM
8. L
   TULN
9. L
   ARMY
10. L
    UTSA
11. L
    ECU
12. W
    TEM
13. L
    TXST

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

Players, 2024

1. Chandler MorrisQB443 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 42nd of 232 QBs
   1.75WAR0.92 to 2.52
2. Damon Ward Jr.WR39 plays · +0.379 pts/play · 13th of 452 WRs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.38
3. Shane PorterRB103 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 101st of 373 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.35
4. Drew MestemakerQB52 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 168th of 232 QBs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.35
5. Makenzie McGill IIRB70 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 207th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Blair ConwrightWR35 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 104th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.21
7. DT SheffieldWR57 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 145th of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.05 to 0.23
8. Sawyer EvansP36 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 33rd of 106 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559579th of 131Roster talent: 595, 79th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214289th of 131Recruiting: 142, 89th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%118th of 130Returning production: 20%, 118th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.587th of 131SP+ rating: −4.5, 87th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.07 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 ECUQ4 0:29 4th & 10 at ECU 15, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs ECUQ3 4:26 4th & 6 at ECU 33, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at FAUQ4 8:02 4th & 6 at UNT 32, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at UTSAQ2 1:28 4th & 5 at UTSA 16, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at TEMQ2 2:34 4th & 2 at UNT 33, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs WYOQ4 2:07 4th & 3 at WYO 16, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TULNQ2 2:54 4th & 15 at TULN 39, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs ARMYQ2 1:24 4th & 7 at UNT 41, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

71st of 134 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

   USA
2. W

   SFA
3. L

   TTU
4. W

   WYO
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   FAU
7. L

   MEM
8. L

   TULN
9. L

   ARMY
10. L

    UTSA
11. L

    ECU
12. W

    TEM
13. L

    TXST

What moved it, 2024

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−0.21
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• USAW 52-38 at USA32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• SFAW 35-20 vs SFA93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Clock −1
• TTUL 21-66 at TTU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +1
• WYOW 44-17 vs WYO69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −1
• TLSAW 52-20 vs TLSA62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39, Clock −1
• FAUW 41-37 at FAU66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• MEML 44-52 at MEM19% → 9%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +1
• TULNL 37-45 vs TULN29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• ARMYL 3-14 vs ARMY33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• UTSAL 27-48 at UTSA46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −44, Clock +1
• ECUL 28-40 vs ECU55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• TEMW 24-17 at TEM77% → 88%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• TXSTL 28-30 at TXST15% → 4%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −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.