Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0629th
  Defense+0.1445th
• 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.
  Offense42.5%48th
  Defense44.1%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1613th
  Defense+1.1783rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0339th
  Defense+0.0456th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1037th
  Defense+0.2435th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%57th
  Defense49.4%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%44th
  Defense30.8%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8849th
  Defense2.9841st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%48th
  Defense20.0%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%35th
  Defense14.7%28th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   HCU
2. L
   TEX
3. L
   KSU
4. L
   ISU
5. W
   WVU
6. L
   OU
7. L
   TCU
8. W
   BAY
9. L
   OKST
10. W
    KU

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

Players, 2020

1. SaRodorick ThompsonRB105 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 70th of 338 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.44
2. Alan BowmanQB154 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 117th of 212 QBs
   0.24WAR−0.04 to 0.53
3. Henry ColombiQB165 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 118th of 212 QBs
   0.24WAR−0.03 to 0.55
4. Tahj BrooksRB61 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 168th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.23
5. Erik EzukanmaWR52 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 33rd of 409 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
6. Xavier WhiteWR61 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 98th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.20
7. KeSean CarterWR25 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. T.J. VasherWR24 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 308th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62062049th of 127Roster talent: 620, 49th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817859th of 127Recruiting: 178, 59th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%86th of 127Returning production: 53%, 86th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.2−4.287th of 127SP+ rating: −4.2, 87th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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 15:00 4th & 2 at TTU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs KUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at TTU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs KUQ4 1:58 4th & 4 at KU 27, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs KUQ3 6:59 4th & 3 at KU 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs WVUQ2 9:00 4th & 10 at WVU 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ISUQ2 11:40 4th & 4 at ISU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at OKSTQ1 2:41 4th & 1 at TTU 31, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at OKSTQ2 2:28 4th & 4 at OKST 26, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

70th of 127 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

   HCU
2. L

   TEX
3. L

   KSU
4. L

   ISU
5. W

   WVU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   TCU
8. W

   BAY
9. L

   OKST
10. W

    KU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.68
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• HCUW 35-33 vs HCU99% → 89%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −10: Scoreboard +5, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 56-63 vs TEX9% → 16%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −9
• KSUL 21-31 at KSU46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• ISUL 15-31 at ISU23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• WVUW 34-27 vs WVU38% → 89%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• OUL 28-62 vs OU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• TCUL 18-34 at TCU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• BAYW 24-23 vs BAY51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• OKSTL 44-50 at OKST19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• KUW 16-13 vs KU95% → 93%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +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.