Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0114th
  Defense+0.1819th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%9th
  Defense46.2%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2262nd
  Defense+1.1373rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0318th
  Defense+0.0260th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0933rd
  Defense+0.378th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%7th
  Defense51.7%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%25th
  Defense32.9%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.465th
  Defense2.9340th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.2%1st
  Defense18.4%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.4%2nd
  Defense12.6%7th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   HCU
2. L
   COLO
3. L
   APP
4. L
   UTSA
5. L
   WYO
6. L
   ULM
7. L
   UL
8. W
   CCU
9. L
   NMSU
10. L
    GAST
11. L
    ARST
12. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2017

1. Damian WilliamsQB268 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 107th of 226 QBs
   0.70WAR0.23 to 1.25
2. Elijah KingWR55 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
3. Tyler WattsWR25 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 319th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
4. Thurman MorbleyWR11 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 388th of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
5. Marcus RipleyPK43 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 107th of 110 kickers
   0.02WAR−0.06 to 0.09
6. Willie Jones IIIQB47 plays · +0.021 pts/play · 210th of 226 QBs
   0.02WAR−0.11 to 0.15
7. Gabe SchradeTE23 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 52nd of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04
8. Anthony D. TaylorRB12 plays · +0.004 pts/play · 292nd of 352 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  275275123rd of 130Roster talent: 275, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11911997th of 130Recruiting: 119, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%43rd of 128Returning production: 70%, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −23.5−23.5125th of 128SP+ rating: −23.5, 125th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 7:38 4th & 3 at TXST 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs APPQ2 4:19 4th & 1 at TXST 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs NMSUQ2 12:16 4th & 1 at TXST 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at CCUQ3 2:54 4th & 3 at CCU 19, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at ULQ2 9:27 4th & 2 at UL 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at TROYQ2 4:04 4th & 2 at TROY 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs ULMQ2 9:25 4th & 1 at TXST 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UTSAQ2 3:06 4th & 10 at UTSA 37, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

78th of 130 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. W

   HCU
2. L

   COLO
3. L

   APP
4. L

   UTSA
5. L

   WYO
6. L

   ULM
7. L

   UL
8. W

   CCU
9. L

   NMSU
10. L

    GAST
11. L

    ARST
12. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2017

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−0.97
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• HCUW 20-11 vs HCU88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• COLOL 3-37 at COLO2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• APPL 13-20 vs APP8% → 21%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +14: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +2
• UTSAL 14-44 vs UTSA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• WYOL 10-45 at WYO14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ULML 27-45 vs ULM32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• ULL 7-24 at UL21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• CCUW 27-7 at CCU27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +64, Clock +1
• NMSUL 35-45 vs NMSU24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• ARSTL 12-30 at ARST5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9, Timeouts +1
• TROYL 9-62 at TROY6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8

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.