Texas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2996th
  Defense+0.1242nd
• 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.
  Offense46.3%83rd
  Defense41.2%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3487th
  Defense+1.3219th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2697th
  Defense+0.0648th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3586th
  Defense+0.2136th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%64th
  Defense45.6%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.
  Offense38.2%94th
  Defense32.2%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1376th
  Defense2.6782nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%74th
  Defense24.4%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%89th
  Defense15.7%50th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   EMU
2. W
   UTSA
3. L
   ASU
4. W
   NICH
5. L
   ARST
6. L
   TROY
7. L
   MRSH
8. L
   JMU
9. L
   UL
10. W
    USM
11. W
    ULM
12. W
    USA
13. W
    RICE

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

Players, 2025

1. Brad JacksonQB439 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 14th of 231 QBs
   1.99WAR1.21 to 2.75
2. Lincoln PareRB193 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 24th of 365 RBs
   0.37WAR0.26 to 0.49
3. Beau SparksWR92 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 32nd of 451 WRs
   0.27WAR0.10 to 0.47
4. Greg BurrellRB86 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Tyler RoblesPK21 plays · +0.369 pts/play · 5th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Chris Dawn Jr.WR84 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.08 to 0.28
7. Torrance Burgess Jr.RB11 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 331st of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. David NunezP35 plays · −0.008 pts/play · 81st of 100 punters
   −0.01WAR−0.05 to 0.04

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61261276th of 134Roster talent: 612, 76th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122114th of 134Recruiting: 122, 114th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%90th of 132Returning production: 22%, 90th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.3+2.364th of 134SP+ rating: +2.3, 64th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 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. vs TROYQ4 3:55 4th & 2 at TROY 18, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at MRSHQ2 7:55 4th & 3 at MRSH 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. vs USAQ2 2:18 4th & 7 at USA 40, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at UTSAQ1 4:17 4th & 1 at TXST 22, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 2:16 4th & 4 at TXST 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at ARSTQ2 5:48 4th & 4 at ARST 13, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs RICEQ3 6:53 4th & 3 at RICE 11, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at USMQ1 10:12 4th & 1 at USM 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

104th of 136 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

   EMU
2. W

   UTSA
3. L

   ASU
4. W

   NICH
5. L

   ARST
6. L

   TROY
7. L

   MRSH
8. L

   JMU
9. L

   UL
10. W

    USM
11. W

    ULM
12. W

    USA
13. W

    RICE

What moved it, 2025

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−0.40
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts+0.39
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• EMUW 52-27 vs EMU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −1
• UTSAW 43-36 at UTSA33% → 96%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• ASUL 15-34 at ASU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts +1
• NICHW 35-3 vs NICH97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ARSTL 30-31 at ARST79% → 25%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −60, Timeouts +44
• TROYL 41-48 vs TROY69% → 25%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Clock +2
• MRSHL 37-40 at MRSH62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −54, Possession & field position −1
• JMUL 20-52 vs JMU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• ULL 39-42 at UL59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• USMW 41-14 at USM42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• ULMW 31-14 vs ULM90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position −1
• USAW 49-26 vs USA75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Clock −1
• RICEW 41-10 vs RICE90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13

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.