Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2377th
  Defense+0.2221st
• 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%80th
  Defense42.5%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3271st
  Defense+1.3811th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2074th
  Defense+0.1435th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3274th
  Defense+0.3019th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.3%81st
  Defense46.7%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%64th
  Defense33.3%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2573rd
  Defense2.8767th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.2%75th
  Defense15.8%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%40th
  Defense15.0%26th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2021

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
   HOU
2. W
   SFA
3. W
   FIU
4. L
   TEX
5. W
   WVU
6. L
   TCU
7. W
   KU
8. L
   KSU
9. L
   OU
10. W
    ISU
11. L
    OKST
12. L
    BAY
13. W
    MSST

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

Players, 2021

1. Donovan SmithQB147 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 123rd of 219 QBs
   0.53WAR0.23 to 0.85
2. Tyler ShoughQB60 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 137th of 219 QBs
   0.45WAR0.30 to 0.58
3. SaRodorick ThompsonRB94 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 118th of 387 RBs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.46
4. Henry ColombiQB128 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 160th of 219 QBs
   0.34WAR0.07 to 0.60
5. Tahj BrooksRB70 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 184th of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
6. Erik EzukanmaWR49 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 104th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
7. Austin McNamaraP33 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 25th of 101 punters
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
8. Kaylon GeigerWR57 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60760759th of 130Roster talent: 607, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417464th of 130Recruiting: 174, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%84th of 128Returning production: 63%, 84th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.8+9.840th of 130SP+ rating: +9.8, 40th 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, 2021

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 0.02 of the 0.06 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 KSUQ4 1:13 4th & 16 at TTU 48, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
2. vs MSSTQ2 0:31 4th & 17 at MSST 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. vs TCUQ4 12:55 4th & 11 at TCU 14, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at HOUQ4 7:11 4th & 4 at TTU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at HOUQ3 0:36 4th & 4 at HOU 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs TCUQ4 6:00 4th & 5 at TCU 24, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs MSSTQ1 3:03 4th & 3 at MSST 13, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs FIUQ3 9:08 4th & 3 at FIU 3, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

24th of 130 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

   HOU
2. W

   SFA
3. W

   FIU
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   WVU
6. L

   TCU
7. W

   KU
8. L

   KSU
9. L

   OU
10. W

    ISU
11. L

    OKST
12. L

    BAY
13. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2021

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+0.85
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.59

Game by game

• HOUW 38-21 at HOU44% → 98%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +55, Clock +1
• SFAW 28-22 vs SFA98% → 79%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −19: Scoreboard +5, Clock +1
• FIUW 54-21 vs FIU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16
• TEXL 35-70 at TEX27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• WVUW 23-20 at WVU27% → 85%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• TCUL 31-52 vs TCU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• KUW 41-14 at KU87% → 94%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• KSUL 24-25 vs KSU46% → 24%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −31, Clock −4
• OUL 21-52 at OU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• ISUW 41-38 vs ISU18% → 96%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• OKSTL 0-23 vs OKST25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• BAYL 24-27 at BAY17% → 19%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +2
• MSSTW 34-7 vs MSST23% → 100%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +63, Possession & field position −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.