Sam Houston

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+0.0316th
  Defense+0.0861st
• 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.
  Offense36.9%11th
  Defense41.6%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1512th
  Defense+1.1489th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense+0.0658th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2144th
  Defense+0.1767th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%14th
  Defense48.1%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.6%7th
  Defense27.3%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.612nd
  Defense3.2227th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%60th
  Defense14.0%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense13.7%8th

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 Sam Houston 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
   BYU
2. L
   AF
3. L
   HOU
4. L
   JXST
5. L
   LIB
6. L
   NMSU
7. L
   FIU
8. L
   UTEP
9. W
   KENN
10. W
    LT
11. L
    WKU
12. W
    MTSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Sam Houston.

Players, 2023

1. Keegan ShoemakerQB461 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 59th of 250 QBs
   1.38WAR0.35 to 2.46
2. Noah SmithWR114 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 20th of 457 WRs
   0.30WAR0.10 to 0.50
3. John GentryRB151 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 105th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.12 to 0.36
4. Al'vonte WoodardWR38 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 166th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
5. Elijah SohnTE16 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 69th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Malik PhillipsWR45 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 231st of 457 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.15
7. Jax SherrardTE13 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 97th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jadon CardellPK67 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 98th of 113 kickers
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12

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 Sam Houston'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.
  240240128th of 130Roster talent: 240, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  7171128th of 130Recruiting: 71, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.8−13.8112th of 130SP+ rating: −13.8, 112th 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 Sam Houston's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 LIBQ4 12:43 4th & 1 at SHSU 40, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at WKUQ4 14:51 4th & 3 at WKU 48, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs MTSUQ3 9:11 4th & 1 at SHSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs KENNQ3 11:01 4th & 4 at KENN 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs UTEPQ4 14:13 4th & 2 at SHSU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs FIUQ4 4:25 4th & 6 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at BYUQ4 3:49 4th & 3 at SHSU 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UTEPQ3 10:45 4th & 4 at UTEP 5, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

115th of 133 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Sam Houston's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   BYU
2. L

   AF
3. L

   HOU
4. L

   JXST
5. L

   LIB
6. L

   NMSU
7. L

   FIU
8. L

   UTEP
9. W

   KENN
10. W

    LT
11. L

    WKU
12. W

    MTSU

What moved it, 2023

Every game starts at Sam Houston'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−1.85
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.27
• Timeouts−0.33
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• BYUL 0-14 at BYU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• AFL 3-13 vs AF21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• HOUL 7-38 at HOU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• JXSTL 28-35 vs JXST39% → 22%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −19
• LIBL 16-21 at LIB10% → 5%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• NMSUL 13-27 at NMSU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• FIUL 27-33 vs FIU65% → 8%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −58, Clock +16
• UTEPL 34-37 vs UTEP63% → 15%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• KENNW 24-21 vs KENN89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16
• LTW 42-27 at LT28% → 98%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• WKUL 23-28 at WKU26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• MTSUW 23-20 vs MTSU43% → 81%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −3

Points of win probability, from Sam Houston's side.

Closest call

SHSU 21-17 ORST (2025) - Sam Houston dropped to a 4.9% win probability before pulling it out.