Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1051st
  Defense+0.294th
• 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.
  Offense41.8%34th
  Defense48.6%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2261st
  Defense+1.3114th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1374th
  Defense+0.177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0731st
  Defense+0.472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%37th
  Defense50.1%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%46th
  Defense44.4%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7532nd
  Defense3.249th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%32nd
  Defense16.2%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%28th
  Defense2.7%84th

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, 2015

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
   FSU
2. W
   PV
3. L
   USM
4. L
   HOU
5. L
   UL
6. W
   USA
7. L
   GASO
8. L
   NMSU
9. L
   GAST
10. W
    ULM
11. L
    IDHO
12. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2015

1. Tyler JonesQB297 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 85th of 205 QBs
   1.11WAR0.64 to 1.56
2. Robert LoweRB146 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 73rd of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.42
3. C.J. BestWR61 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 211th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
4. Jafus GainesWR31 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 270th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Brandon SmithWR24 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 327th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Ryan CardenTE17 plays · +0.015 pts/play · 23rd of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03
7. Lawrence WhiteTE14 plays · −0.005 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  360360103rd of 128Roster talent: 360, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11711797th of 128Recruiting: 117, 97th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%31st of 127Returning production: 80%, 31st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.5−15.5113th of 128SP+ rating: −15.5, 113th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.09 of the 0.15 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 NMSUQ4 10:12 4th & 2 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. vs NMSUQ3 5:25 4th & 1 at TXST 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs ULMQ4 12:23 4th & 2 at TXST 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs GASTQ2 7:39 4th & 1 at TXST 17, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ULMQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at ULM 8, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs NMSUQ4 7:18 4th & 8 at TXST 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at ULQ2 0:06 4th & 6 at TXST 46, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at GASOQ2 5:48 4th & 1 at TXST 46, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

120th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   FSU
2. W

   PV
3. L

   USM
4. L

   HOU
5. L

   UL
6. W

   USA
7. L

   GASO
8. L

   NMSU
9. L

   GAST
10. W

    ULM
11. L

    IDHO
12. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2015

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−1.84
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• FSUL 16-59 at FSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• PVW 63-24 vs PV96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USML 50-56 vs USM55% → 4%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• HOUL 14-59 at HOU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17
• ULL 27-49 at UL42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −41
• USAW 36-18 vs USA67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• GASOL 13-37 at GASO12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• NMSUL 21-31 vs NMSU82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• GASTL 19-41 vs GAST64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• ULMW 16-3 vs ULM69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33
• ARSTL 17-55 at ARST8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11

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.