Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2686th
  Defense+0.279th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%59th
  Defense48.2%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4098th
  Defense+1.2051st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1258th
  Defense+0.248th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3683rd
  Defense+0.3216th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%50th
  Defense53.2%4th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%73rd
  Defense36.2%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0565th
  Defense3.346th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%28th
  Defense13.6%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%30th
  Defense2.1%58th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   CARK
2. W
   UTEP
3. L
   ARK
4. L
   OKST
5. L
   KSU
6. L
   WVU
7. W
   KU
8. L
   TCU
9. L
   TEX
10. L
    OU
11. W
    ISU
12. L
    BAY

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

Players, 2014

1. Davis WebbQB279 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 90th of 199 QBs
   1.20WAR0.71 to 1.69
2. Patrick MahomesQB179 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 115th of 199 QBs
   0.83WAR0.59 to 1.09
3. DeAndre WashingtonRB183 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 26th of 350 RBs
   0.44WAR0.29 to 0.59
4. Bradley MarquezWR76 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 53rd of 469 WRs
   0.23WAR0.11 to 0.34
5. Taylor SymmankPK44 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 12th of 114 kickers
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.24
6. Jakeem GrantWR87 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 96th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.32
7. Devin LauderdaleWR34 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 171st of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
8. Ian SadlerWR31 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 200th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 0.07 of the 0.11 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 WVUQ4 2:02 4th & 3 at WVU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
2. at UTEPQ4 12:23 4th & 2 at TTU 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs WVUQ3 5:01 4th & 4 at WVU 4, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs KUQ4 2:05 4th & 1 at TTU 41, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at OKSTQ2 7:48 4th & 15 at OKST 39, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs KUQ3 11:11 4th & 3 at KU 21, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CARKQ3 3:44 4th & 6 at CARK 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at TCUQ2 8:35 4th & 4 at TCU 21, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

103rd of 128 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

   CARK
2. W

   UTEP
3. L

   ARK
4. L

   OKST
5. L

   KSU
6. L

   WVU
7. W

   KU
8. L

   TCU
9. L

   TEX
10. L

    OU
11. W

    ISU
12. L

    BAY

What moved it, 2014

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−1.51
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• CARKW 42-35 vs CARK97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +9
• UTEPW 30-26 at UTEP90% → 91%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• ARKL 28-49 vs ARK61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• OKSTL 35-45 at OKST18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22
• KSUL 13-45 at KSU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• WVUL 34-37 vs WVU41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• KUW 34-21 vs KU81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• TCUL 27-82 at TCU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −12
• TEXL 13-34 vs TEX34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• OUL 30-42 vs OU18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• ISUW 34-31 at ISU45% → 82%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• BAYL 46-48 vs BAY7% → 7%Before kickoff −43 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −18, 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.