Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2279th
  Defense+0.0957th
• 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.
  Offense47.0%86th
  Defense40.7%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2439th
  Defense+1.3617th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1572nd
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3277th
  Defense+0.2348th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.8%84th
  Defense43.2%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%88th
  Defense36.3%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1963rd
  Defense2.9073rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%58th
  Defense20.4%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%55th
  Defense19.4%88th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   BAY
2. L
   UTSA
3. W
   JKST
4. W
   NEV
5. W
   USM
6. L
   UL
7. W
   ULM
8. L
   TROY
9. W
   GASO
10. L
    CCU
11. L
    ARST
12. W
    USA
13. W
    RICE

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

Players, 2023

1. TJ FinleyQB407 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 43rd of 250 QBs
   1.58WAR0.75 to 2.54
2. Ismail MahdiRB208 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 8th of 383 RBs
   0.61WAR0.40 to 0.75
3. Joey HobertWR80 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 59th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.07 to 0.40
4. Kole WilsonWR72 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 66th of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.36
5. Ashtyn HawkinsWR65 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 111th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR−0.01 to 0.33
6. Mason ShipleyPK15 plays · +0.399 pts/play · 27th of 113 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Donerio DavenportRB67 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 224th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Calvin HillRB35 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 277th of 383 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48548594th of 130Roster talent: 485, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8686126th of 130Recruiting: 86, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%71st of 128Returning production: 47%, 71st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.6−1.669th of 130SP+ rating: −1.6, 69th 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, 2023

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 0.04 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 ARSTQ2 0:02 4th & 13 at ARST 42, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
2. vs TROYQ3 8:16 4th & 3 at TROY 6, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at ULQ2 0:11 4th & 3 at UL 18, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at ULQ4 4:33 4th & 10 at TXST 35, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs TROYQ2 1:49 4th & 4 at TROY 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at BAYQ4 2:49 4th & 2 at TXST 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TROYQ4 4:48 4th & 12 at TXST 26, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs NEVQ2 4:03 4th & 6 at NEV 17, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

28th of 133 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

   BAY
2. L

   UTSA
3. W

   JKST
4. W

   NEV
5. W

   USM
6. L

   UL
7. W

   ULM
8. L

   TROY
9. W

   GASO
10. L

    CCU
11. L

    ARST
12. W

    USA
13. W

    RICE

What moved it, 2023

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+0.98
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• BAYW 42-31 at BAY4% → 97%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +93: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• UTSAL 13-20 at UTSA14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• JKSTW 77-34 vs JKST89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• NEVW 35-24 vs NEV89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts −1
• USMW 50-36 at USM63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• ULL 30-34 at UL43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −3
• ULMW 21-20 vs ULM91% → 80%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +6, Timeouts +3
• TROYL 13-31 vs TROY33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• GASOW 45-24 vs GASO52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, Clock −1
• CCUL 23-31 at CCU53% → 6%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• ARSTL 31-77 at ARST60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −56, Timeouts +2
• USAW 52-44 vs USA31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• RICEW 45-21 at RICE58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2

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.