Sam Houston

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+0.0623rd
  Defense−0.0192nd
• 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.
  Offense39.6%23rd
  Defense41.3%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.125th
  Defense+1.0199th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0741st
  Defense+0.1138th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0721st
  Defense−0.1299th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%28th
  Defense49.9%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.2%11th
  Defense23.7%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1668th
  Defense3.3114th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%79th
  Defense12.5%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%68th
  Defense16.9%58th

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 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. W
   RICE
2. L
   UCF
3. W
   HAW
4. W
   NMSU
5. W
   TXST
6. W
   UTEP
7. L
   WKU
8. W
   FIU
9. W
   LT
10. W
    KENN
11. L
    JXST
12. W
    LIB
13. W
    GASO

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

Players, 2024

1. Hunter WatsonQB399 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 43rd of 232 QBs
   1.74WAR1.02 to 2.39
2. Jay DuckerRB139 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 77th of 373 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.42
3. Jase BauerQB64 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 158th of 232 QBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.42
4. DJ McKinneyRB80 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 169th of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Simeon EvansWR53 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 202nd of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.05 to 0.18
6. Christian PavonPK18 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 78th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Ife AdeyiWR33 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 212th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
8. John GentryRB24 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 293rd of 373 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  488488114th of 131Roster talent: 488, 114th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9494126th of 131Recruiting: 94, 126th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%72nd of 130Returning production: 43%, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.9−6.996th of 131SP+ rating: −6.9, 96th 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 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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.22 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 FIUQ4 1:57 4th & 4 at FIU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs LTQ4 8:13 4th & 1 at SHSU 14, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs LTQ2 0:05 4th & 18 at LT 42, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.3 pts
4. at JXSTQ3 5:06 4th & 1 at SHSU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs GASOQ3 4:01 4th & 4 at SHSU 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at KENNQ4 8:13 4th & 3 at SHSU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs LTQ3 0:00 4th & 2 at SHSU 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs LTQ3 4:22 4th & 2 at SHSU 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

6th of 134 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. W

   RICE
2. L

   UCF
3. W

   HAW
4. W

   NMSU
5. W

   TXST
6. W

   UTEP
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   FIU
9. W

   LT
10. W

    KENN
11. L

    JXST
12. W

    LIB
13. W

    GASO

What moved it, 2024

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+2.33
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Timeouts+0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• RICEW 34-14 at RICE26% → 100%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +65, Clock +4
• UCFL 14-45 at UCF7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• HAWW 31-13 vs HAW55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42
• NMSUW 31-11 vs NMSU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• TXSTW 40-39 vs TXST24% → 78%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +3
• UTEPW 41-21 at UTEP75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• WKUL 14-31 vs WKU54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• FIUW 10-7 at FIU62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• LTW 9-3 vs LT77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• KENNW 23-17 at KENN91% → 90%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +8
• JXSTL 11-21 at JXST37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• LIBW 20-18 vs LIB40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• GASOW 31-26 vs GASO40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2

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.