Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.071st
  Defense+0.254th
• 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.
  Offense37.5%6th
  Defense48.1%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1735th
  Defense+1.1854th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0310th
  Defense+0.1133rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.093rd
  Defense+0.461st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%8th
  Defense53.7%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.
  Offense27.5%6th
  Defense35.9%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.352nd
  Defense3.1028th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.0%5th
  Defense18.5%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%1st
  Defense12.0%3rd

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, 2016

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
   OHIO
2. L
   ARK
3. L
   HOU
4. W
   UIW
5. L
   GAST
6. L
   ULM
7. L
   UL
8. L
   APP
9. L
   IDHO
10. L
    NMSU
11. L
    TROY
12. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2016

1. Tyler JonesQB219 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 113th of 218 QBs
   0.64WAR0.31 to 1.01
2. Stedman MayberryRB102 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 125th of 347 RBs
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.40
3. Connor WhiteQB40 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 192nd of 218 QBs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.19
4. Lumi KabaPK26 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 56th of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
5. Gabe SchradeTE22 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 53rd of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04
6. Tyler SiudzinskiRB4 plays · +0.002 pts/play · 296th of 347 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  352352112th of 128Roster talent: 352, 112th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115103rd of 128Recruiting: 115, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%115th of 128Returning production: 34%, 115th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −25.5−25.5128th of 128SP+ rating: −25.5, 128th 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, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.07 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 OHIOQ4 7:12 4th & 4 at TXST 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. vs UIWQ2 13:09 4th & 1 at UIW 14, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs ULQ4 15:00 4th & 11 at UL 46, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs IDHOQ2 9:35 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at GASTQ1 2:06 4th & 3 at GAST 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ULMQ2 12:03 4th & 2 at TXST 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at GASTQ4 15:00 4th & 10 at GAST 27, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UIWQ3 14:46 4th & 18 at UIW 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

86th 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

   OHIO
2. L

   ARK
3. L

   HOU
4. W

   UIW
5. L

   GAST
6. L

   ULM
7. L

   UL
8. L

   APP
9. L

   IDHO
10. L

    NMSU
11. L

    TROY
12. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2016

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−1.47
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• OHIOW 56-54 at OHIO11% → 75%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +17
• ARKL 3-42 at ARK3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4
• HOUL 3-64 vs HOU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• UIWW 48-17 vs UIW87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• GASTL 21-41 at GAST29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +1
• ULML 34-40 at ULM34% → 13%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• ULL 3-27 vs UL21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• APPL 10-35 at APP3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• IDHOL 14-47 vs IDHO29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• NMSUL 10-50 at NMSU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• TROYL 7-40 vs TROY5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• ARSTL 14-36 vs ARST9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −16, 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.