Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2172nd
  Defense+0.1639th
• 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.
  Offense44.6%61st
  Defense43.3%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2157th
  Defense+1.1665th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1980th
  Defense+0.1722nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2765th
  Defense+0.1763rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%56th
  Defense49.0%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%75th
  Defense30.2%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1074th
  Defense3.2214th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%54th
  Defense12.8%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense1.6%25th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. W
   UAPB
2. L
   NAVY
3. L
   ILL
4. W
   TLSA
5. W
   IDHO
6. L
   UL
7. W
   ULM
8. W
   NMSU
9. L
   GASO
10. L
    USA
11. W
    ARST
12. W
    GAST

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

Players, 2014

1. Tyler JonesQB391 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 59th of 199 QBs
   1.52WAR0.87 to 2.14
2. Robert LoweRB165 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 53rd of 350 RBs
   0.34WAR0.20 to 0.47
3. Will JohnsonPK53 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 20th of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
4. Terrence FranksRB86 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 183rd of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. C.J. BestWR67 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 200th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
6. Brandon SmithWR38 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 273rd of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Jafus GainesWR20 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 345th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Ryan CardenTE11 plays · +0.015 pts/play · 20th of 212 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.02 to 0.02

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.16 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 USAQ4 12:18 4th & 1 at TXST 16, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs IDHOQ3 3:39 4th & 1 at TXST 10, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at TLSAQ4 7:19 4th & 7 at TLSA 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs IDHOQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at TXST 47, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at USAQ3 11:00 4th & 2 at TXST 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at NMSUQ3 14:52 4th & 2 at TXST 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ULQ2 14:22 4th & 3 at UL 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at USAQ1 3:14 4th & 1 at USA 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

35th of 128 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. W

   UAPB
2. L

   NAVY
3. L

   ILL
4. W

   TLSA
5. W

   IDHO
6. L

   UL
7. W

   ULM
8. W

   NMSU
9. L

   GASO
10. L

    USA
11. W

    ARST
12. W

    GAST

What moved it, 2014

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+0.66
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• UAPBW 65-0 vs UAPB96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• NAVYL 21-35 vs NAVY23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −1
• ILLL 35-42 at ILL20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 37-34 at TLSA39% → 89%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• IDHOW 35-30 vs IDHO84% → 93%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• ULL 10-34 vs UL58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• ULMW 22-18 at ULM47% → 94%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• NMSUW 37-29 at NMSU77% → 94%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• GASOL 25-28 vs GASO30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• USAL 20-24 at USA41% → 19%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +4
• ARSTW 45-27 vs ARST36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +2
• GASTW 54-31 at GAST77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1

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.