Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.065th
  Defense+0.1725th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%2nd
  Defense45.7%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3798th
  Defense+1.1283rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.088th
  Defense+0.0942nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0511th
  Defense+0.3212th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.3%2nd
  Defense50.7%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%16th
  Defense32.7%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.061st
  Defense3.2113th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense28.1%1st
  Defense14.5%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.5%10th
  Defense14.6%2nd

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, 2019

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
   TA&M
2. L
   WYO
3. L
   SMU
4. W
   GAST
5. W
   NICH
6. L
   ULM
7. L
   ARST
8. L
   UL
9. W
   USA
10. L
    TROY
11. L
    APP
12. L
    CCU

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

Players, 2019

1. Tyler VittQB194 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 113th of 228 QBs
   0.59WAR0.23 to 0.91
2. Gresch JensenQB127 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 167th of 228 QBs
   0.28WAR0.08 to 0.47
3. Caleb TwyfordWR77 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 100th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
4. Anthony D. TaylorRB46 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 261st of 349 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
5. Hutch WhiteWR61 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 210th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
6. Jeremiah HaydelWR32 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 273rd of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Robert Brown Jr.RB15 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 286th of 349 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.06
8. Micah HiltsTE10 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  348348116th of 130Roster talent: 348, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  119119115th of 130Recruiting: 119, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%103rd of 130Returning production: 41%, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.2−16.2118th of 130SP+ rating: −16.2, 118th 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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 USAQ4 2:52 4th & 12 at USA 35, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
2. vs ULMQ4 11:34 4th & 2 at TXST 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at ARSTQ3 6:42 4th & 1 at TXST 12, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ULMQ3 11:25 4th & 14 at ULM 42, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs USAQ3 0:37 4th & 4 at USA 27, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs USAQ2 12:03 4th & 2 at USA 24, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at SMUQ1 1:32 4th & 1 at TXST 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at SMUQ2 0:47 4th & 2 at SMU 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

97th 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. L

   TA&M
2. L

   WYO
3. L

   SMU
4. W

   GAST
5. W

   NICH
6. L

   ULM
7. L

   ARST
8. L

   UL
9. W

   USA
10. L

    TROY
11. L

    APP
12. L

    CCU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.41
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• TA&ML 7-41 at TA&M2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• WYOL 14-23 vs WYO29% → 9%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +2
• SMUL 17-47 at SMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• NICHW 24-3 vs NICH60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39
• ULML 14-24 vs ULM38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• ARSTL 14-38 at ARST23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27
• ULL 3-31 at UL6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• USAW 30-28 vs USA69% → 86%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• TROYL 27-63 vs TROY28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34
• APPL 13-35 at APP3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• CCUL 21-24 at CCU29% → 5%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28

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.