Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0425th
  Defense+0.0477th
• 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%15th
  Defense41.1%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1826th
  Defense+1.1387th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0640th
  Defense−0.0185th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1219th
  Defense+0.1857th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%9th
  Defense46.4%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%26th
  Defense30.4%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1152nd
  Defense3.1041st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.7%94th
  Defense13.7%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%17th
  Defense17.7%72nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NEV
2. W
   FIU
3. L
   BAY
4. W
   HCU
5. L
   JMU
6. W
   APP
7. L
   TROY
8. L
   USM
9. L
   ULM
10. L
    USA
11. W
    ARST
12. L
    UL

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

Players, 2022

1. Layne HatcherQB351 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 91st of 234 QBs
   0.84WAR0.15 to 1.60
2. Lincoln PareRB151 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 77th of 384 RBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.46
3. Calvin HillRB39 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 261st of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
4. Charles BrownWR30 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. Ashtyn HawkinsWR35 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 300th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
6. Javen BanksWR18 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 305th of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Seth KellerPK10 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 72nd of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Julian Ortega-JonesWR22 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 331st of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46546589th of 129Roster talent: 465, 89th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  7979128th of 129Recruiting: 79, 128th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%75th of 128Returning production: 54%, 75th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.5−11.599th of 129SP+ rating: −11.5, 99th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.24 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. vs ARSTQ4 3:17 4th & 1 at ARST 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−9.4 pts
2. at ULMQ4 1:44 4th & 8 at ULM 39, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.5 pts
3. vs USMQ4 4:07 4th & 3 at TXST 24, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
4. vs APPQ2 6:46 4th & 1 at APP 16, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. vs ARSTQ3 12:18 4th & 2 at TXST 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs ARSTQ2 6:15 4th & 2 at ARST 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs ARSTQ3 8:48 4th & 2 at TXST 19, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at TROYQ4 5:28 4th & 5 at TXST 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

82nd of 131 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

   NEV
2. W

   FIU
3. L

   BAY
4. W

   HCU
5. L

   JMU
6. W

   APP
7. L

   TROY
8. L

   USM
9. L

   ULM
10. L

    USA
11. W

    ARST
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2022

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−1.06
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.68

Game by game

• NEVL 14-38 at NEV55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −48, Possession & field position −1
• FIUW 41-12 vs FIU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −1
• BAYL 7-42 at BAY3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• HCUW 34-0 vs HCU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• JMUL 13-40 at JMU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• APPW 36-24 vs APP8% → 97%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position −2
• TROYL 14-17 at TROY13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18
• USML 14-20 vs USM35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• ULML 30-31 at ULM40% → 7%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +1
• USAL 21-38 at USA13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• ARSTW 16-13 vs ARST63% → 96%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• ULL 13-41 vs UL36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −39, 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.