Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1755th
  Defense−0.0482nd
• 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.
  Offense46.7%68th
  Defense37.2%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1418th
  Defense+1.2935th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1872nd
  Defense−0.1188th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2964th
  Defense+0.0770th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%70th
  Defense39.7%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%68th
  Defense31.8%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1658th
  Defense2.7072nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%32nd
  Defense21.5%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%8th
  Defense16.7%60th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Tech 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
   ACU
2. W
   ORST
3. W
   HOU
4. W
   SHSU
5. W
   COLO

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

Players, 2026

1. Will HammondQB104 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 81st of 192 QBs
   0.24WAR0.08 to 0.37
2. J'Koby WilliamsRB52 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 65th of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
3. Kenny JohnsonWR21 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 86th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
4. Cameron DickeyRB34 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Coy EakinWR15 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 157th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Tommy CastellanosQB7 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 186th of 192 QBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
7. Stone HarringtonPK4 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 51st of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Will KarollP13 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 32nd of 84 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 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 Tech'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76876828th of 138Roster talent: 768, 28th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22722723rd of 138Recruiting: 227, 23rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%53rd of 136Returning production: 53%, 53rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +21.6+21.610th of 138SP+ rating so far: +21.6, 10th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Tech's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.04 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 COLOQ4 13:42 4th & 2 at COLO 28, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at COLOQ4 14:07 4th & 13 at COLO 39, up 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
3. vs HOUQ4 2:44 4th & 3 at TTU 33, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs ACUQ2 1:38 4th & 4 at ACU 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs SHSUQ1 10:55 4th & 2 at TTU 13, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
6. vs SHSUQ1 0:31 4th & 3 at TTU 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

42nd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Texas Tech's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ACU
2. W

   ORST
3. W

   HOU
4. W

   SHSU
5. W

   COLO

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Texas Tech'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+0.70
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• ACUW 33-10 vs ACU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +3
• ORSTW 35-24 at ORST95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• HOUW 28-26 vs HOU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +1
• SHSUW 49-14 vs SHSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• COLOW 29-7 at COLO85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1

Points of win probability, from Texas Tech's side.

Closest call

TTU 23-22 ISU (2024) - Texas Tech dropped to a 9.3% win probability before pulling it out.