Sam Houston

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−0.083rd
  Defense+0.1622nd
• 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%12th
  Defense47.8%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2450th
  Defense+1.2357th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0127th
  Defense+0.0939th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.113rd
  Defense+0.3213th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%24th
  Defense52.7%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.7%1st
  Defense34.9%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6714th
  Defense2.8948th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.9%4th
  Defense17.2%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.0%3rd
  Defense14.4%26th

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 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
   WKU
2. L
   UNLV
3. L
   HAW
4. L
   TEX
5. L
   NMSU
6. L
   JXST
7. L
   UTEP
8. L
   LT
9. W
   ORST
10. W
    DEL
11. L
    MTSU
12. L
    FIU

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

Players, 2025

1. Hunter WatsonQB159 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 112th of 231 QBs
   0.68WAR0.37 to 0.94
2. Landyn LockeQB120 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 156th of 231 QBs
   0.28WAR0.08 to 0.50
3. Landan BrownRB83 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 121st of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
4. Alton McCaskillRB98 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Curtis GerrandP48 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 3rd of 100 punters
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.27
6. Chris ReedWR41 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 148th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
7. Mabrey MettauerQB62 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 196th of 231 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.20
8. Qua'Vez HumphreysWR20 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 313th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  477477123rd of 134Roster talent: 477, 123rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118118th of 134Recruiting: 118, 118th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%37th of 132Returning production: 52%, 37th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −27.8−27.8133rd of 134SP+ rating: −27.8, 133rd 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 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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.13 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 FIUQ3 12:10 4th & 18 at SHSU 21, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
2. vs DELQ2 0:16 4th & 18 at DEL 39, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. at MTSUQ4 4:55 4th & 10 at MTSU 22, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at ORSTQ4 10:34 4th & 3 at SHSU 25, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UTEPQ4 11:24 4th & 6 at SHSU 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ORSTQ4 14:56 4th & 4 at ORST 29, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ORSTQ2 4:43 4th & 4 at ORST 42, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at NMSUQ4 8:29 4th & 12 at SHSU 40, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

100th of 136 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

   WKU
2. L

   UNLV
3. L

   HAW
4. L

   TEX
5. L

   NMSU
6. L

   JXST
7. L

   UTEP
8. L

   LT
9. W

   ORST
10. W

    DEL
11. L

    MTSU
12. L

    FIU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.97
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.07
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.09

Game by game

• WKUL 24-41 at WKU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• UNLVL 21-38 vs UNLV26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −7
• HAWL 20-37 at HAW30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +1
• TEXL 0-55 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NMSUL 10-37 at NMSU54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −50
• JXSTL 27-29 vs JXST34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• UTEPL 17-35 vs UTEP34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• LTL 14-55 at LT13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• ORSTW 21-17 at ORST8% → 96%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +88: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• DELW 26-23 vs DEL22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• MTSUL 17-31 at MTSU29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• FIUL 16-56 vs FIU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28

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.