North Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.3199th
  Defense+0.0758th
• 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.
  Offense51.5%99th
  Defense43.5%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3175th
  Defense+1.2164th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2999th
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3890th
  Defense+0.0679th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.9%99th
  Defense49.6%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.9%96th
  Defense28.4%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5899th
  Defense3.1913th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%96th
  Defense14.3%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.5%94th
  Defense13.7%20th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   WMU
3. W
   WSU
4. W
   ARMY
5. W
   USA
6. L
   USF
7. W
   UTSA
8. W
   CLT
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    UAB
11. W
    RICE
12. W
    TEM
13. L
    TULN
14. W
    SDSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Drew MestemakerQB380 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 64th of 231 QBs
   1.25WAR0.56 to 2.01
2. Caleb HawkinsRB199 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 3rd of 365 RBs
   0.51WAR0.39 to 0.63
3. Wyatt YoungWR71 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 39th of 451 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.41
4. Cameron DornerWR52 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 134th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.23
5. Makenzie McGill IIRB66 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 241st of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Landon SidesWR38 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Tre Williams IIITE29 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 59th of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
8. Miles ColemanWR48 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 278th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.03 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56956996th of 134Roster talent: 569, 96th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  136136102nd of 134Recruiting: 136, 102nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%86th of 132Returning production: 24%, 86th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.8+13.822nd of 134SP+ rating: +13.8, 22nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 of the 0.10 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 TULNQ3 7:32 4th & 9 at UNT 33, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
2. vs NAVYQ2 0:03 4th & 3 at NAVY 3, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at CLTQ3 0:17 4th & 3 at CLT 23, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at WMUQ3 10:37 4th & 4 at WMU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at WMUQ3 10:37 4th & 4 at WMU 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at SDSUQ4 1:50 4th & 2 at UNT 44, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ARMYQ3 6:25 4th & 4 at ARMY 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at SDSUQ1 5:35 4th & 8 at UNT 27, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

23rd of 136 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. W

   WMU
3. W

   WSU
4. W

   ARMY
5. W

   USA
6. L

   USF
7. W

   UTSA
8. W

   CLT
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    UAB
11. W

    RICE
12. W

    TEM
13. L

    TULN
14. W

    SDSU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.17
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.16

Game by game

• LAMW 51-0 vs LAM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• WMUW 33-30 at WMU80% → 21%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +25
• WSUW 59-10 vs WSU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −1
• ARMYW 45-38 at ARMY61% → 51%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −10: Scoreboard +12, Clock +3
• USAW 36-22 vs USA80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −1
• USFL 36-63 vs USF54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −1
• UTSAW 55-17 vs UTSA54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +46, Clock −1
• CLTW 54-20 at CLT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• NAVYW 31-17 vs NAVY64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• UABW 53-24 at UAB87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• RICEW 56-24 at RICE89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• TEMW 52-25 vs TEM91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• TULNL 21-34 at TULN55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• SDSUW 49-47 at SDSU66% → 85%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +35, Clock +3

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.