Texas State

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+0.2882nd
  Defense+0.1625th
• 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.
  Offense49.9%89th
  Defense45.3%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2967th
  Defense+1.2350th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1769th
  Defense−0.0170th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5091st
  Defense+0.3419th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%62nd
  Defense50.9%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense50.0%99th
  Defense33.7%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2469th
  Defense2.7071st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%82nd
  Defense26.2%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%65th
  Defense14.7%34th

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 State 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
   TEX
2. L
   UTSA
3. W
   UNT
4. W
   UIW
5. L
   SDSU
6. W
   CSU

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

Players, 2026

1. Brad JacksonQB136 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 18th of 192 QBs
   0.49WAR0.29 to 0.67
2. Torrance Burgess Jr.RB66 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 39th of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
3. Davian JacksonRB39 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
4. Chris Dawn Jr.WR27 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 110th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.12
5. Beau SparksWR14 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 150th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
6. Kylen EvansWR15 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Blake SmithTE4 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 State'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.
  62562582nd of 138Roster talent: 625, 82nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615693rd of 138Recruiting: 156, 93rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%16th of 136Returning production: 76%, 16th 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.
  −0.2−0.270th of 138SP+ rating so far: −0.2, 70th 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 State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 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 SDSUQ3 6:49 4th & 6 at TXST 24, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
2. at SDSUQ2 3:56 4th & 3 at SDSU 17, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. at SDSUQ4 8:51 4th & 9 at SDSU 45, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at SDSUQ3 13:07 4th & 2 at TXST 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs UNTQ2 8:59 4th & 10 at UNT 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs UTSAQ2 11:01 4th & 6 at TXST 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at TEXQ4 4:02 4th & 3 at TXST 19, down 45Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

112th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   TEX
2. L

   UTSA
3. W

   UNT
4. W

   UIW
5. L

   SDSU
6. W

   CSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Texas State'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−0.17
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.07
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• TEXL 7-59 at TEX3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• UTSAL 26-31 vs UTSA55% → 7%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −6
• UNTW 49-35 vs UNT69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• UIWW 63-10 vs UIW96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• SDSUL 29-31 at SDSU72% → 13%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −3
• CSUW 66-27 vs CSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17

Points of win probability, from Texas State's side.

Closest call

TXST 42-31 BAY (2023) - Texas State dropped to a 4.4% win probability before pulling it out.