Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0520th
  Defense−0.0484th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%49th
  Defense34.3%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1728th
  Defense+1.0594th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0224th
  Defense−0.0784th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2350th
  Defense+0.0182nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%39th
  Defense40.7%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%61st
  Defense20.2%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8125th
  Defense2.3691st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%36th
  Defense23.8%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%20th
  Defense21.2%93rd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 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
   TXST
2. W
   OSU
3. W
   UTSA
4. W
   TENN
5. L
   OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2026

1. Arch ManningQB116 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 58th of 192 QBs
   0.30WAR0.14 to 0.48
2. Raleek BrownRB41 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
3. Hollywood SmothersRB40 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 146th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
4. Ryan WingoWR17 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 150th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Emmett Mosley VWR16 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Cam ColemanWR14 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Mac ChiumentoP18 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 32nd of 84 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
8. Gianni SpeticPK5 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 69th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9859852nd of 138Roster talent: 985, 2nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2992993rd of 138Recruiting: 299, 3rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%19th of 136Returning production: 72%, 19th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.4+24.46th of 138SP+ rating so far: +24.4, 6th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Texas's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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. at OUQ4 1:54 4th & 2 at OU 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.8 pts
2. at OUQ3 3:48 4th & 1 at TEX 18, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs OSUQ3 2:21 4th & 9 at TEX 42, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. vs UTSAQ3 0:08 4th & 5 at UTSA 14, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at OUQ1 11:52 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs UTSAQ2 8:32 4th & 6 at TEX 49, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
7. vs UTSAQ1 1:26 4th & 8 at UTSA 34, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs TXSTQ4 6:00 4th & 5 at TXST 30, up 42Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

63rd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   TXST
2. W

   OSU
3. W

   UTSA
4. W

   TENN
5. L

   OU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at 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+0.19
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• TXSTW 59-7 vs TXST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• OSUW 24-23 vs OSU55% → 80%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +3
• UTSAW 30-6 vs UTSA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• TENNW 20-17 at TENN67% → 86%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +35, Clock +3
• OUL 24-27 at OU71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Texas's side.

Closest call

TEX 63-56 TTU (2020) - Texas dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.