Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0112th
  Defense+0.0471st
• 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.
  Offense39.3%16th
  Defense36.9%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2566th
  Defense+1.1957th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.068th
  Defense−0.0181st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1031st
  Defense+0.1160th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.8%22nd
  Defense40.0%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%10th
  Defense31.4%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.423rd
  Defense2.9933rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.0%5th
  Defense18.1%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%14th
  Defense15.0%29th

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, 2018

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
   RUTG
2. W
   TXSO
3. L
   USA
4. L
   UTSA
5. L
   UL
6. L
   GASO
7. L
   ULM
8. W
   NMSU
9. W
   GAST
10. L
    APP
11. L
    TROY
12. L
    ARST

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

Players, 2018

1. Tyler VittQB230 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 131st of 225 QBs
   0.59WAR0.26 to 1.00
2. Willie Jones IIIQB164 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 145th of 225 QBs
   0.45WAR0.03 to 0.86
3. Anthony D. TaylorRB64 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 226th of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
4. Robert Brown Jr.RB60 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 233rd of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
5. Clayton StewartP54 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 25th of 91 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
6. Keenen BrownTE50 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 12th of 204 TEs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
7. Hutch WhiteWR34 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 280th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Caleb TwyfordWR53 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 327th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  303303125th of 130Roster talent: 303, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122106th of 130Recruiting: 122, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%106th of 129Returning production: 36%, 106th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.4−16.4114th of 130SP+ rating: −16.4, 114th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.28 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 14:27 4th & 1 at USA 24, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. at ULMQ4 6:14 4th & 20 at ULM 35, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
3. at USAQ4 10:21 4th & 7 at USA 35, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
4. at USAQ2 0:01 4th & 16 at TXST 12, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
5. vs NMSUQ4 5:58 4th & 2 at NMSU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
6. at GASTQ2 1:46 4th & 2 at GAST 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs ARSTQ2 1:12 4th & 12 at ARST 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. at ULMQ2 1:03 4th & 6 at ULM 38, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

79th 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.

1. L

   RUTG
2. W

   TXSO
3. L

   USA
4. L

   UTSA
5. L

   UL
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   ULM
8. W

   NMSU
9. W

   GAST
10. L

    APP
11. L

    TROY
12. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2018

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−0.99
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• RUTGL 7-35 at RUTG12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• TXSOW 36-20 vs TXSO98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +6
• USAL 31-41 at USA25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 21-25 at UTSA33% → 9%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• ULL 27-42 vs UL38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• GASOL 13-15 vs GASO11% → 6%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −23, Clock −2
• ULML 14-20 at ULM21% → 4%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• NMSUW 27-20 vs NMSU48% → 98%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 40-30 at GAST29% → 97%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• APPL 7-38 vs APP11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• TROYL 7-12 at TROY8% → 4%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• ARSTL 7-33 vs ARST15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21

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.