Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1668th
  Defense+0.1530th
• 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.
  Offense44.2%63rd
  Defense43.6%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3172nd
  Defense+1.4011th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1156th
  Defense+0.0656th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2162nd
  Defense+0.2620th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%61st
  Defense46.9%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%71st
  Defense35.9%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1769th
  Defense2.7480th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%63rd
  Defense20.1%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%73rd
  Defense13.7%15th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. L
   WSU
3. W
   UNT
4. W
   ASU
5. W
   CIN
6. W
   ARIZ
7. L
   BAY
8. L
   TCU
9. W
   ISU
10. L
    COLO
11. W
    OKST
12. W
    WVU
13. L
    ARK

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

Players, 2024

1. Behren MortonQB393 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 96th of 232 QBs
   0.90WAR0.27 to 1.46
2. Tahj BrooksRB252 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 3rd of 373 RBs
   0.78WAR0.59 to 0.96
3. Josh KellyWR71 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 12th of 452 WRs
   0.28WAR0.08 to 0.46
4. Will HammondQB53 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 172nd of 232 QBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Caleb DouglasWR61 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 88th of 452 WRs
   0.15WAR0.01 to 0.28
6. Gino GarciaPK16 plays · +0.376 pts/play · 22nd of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Coy EakinWR42 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 202nd of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
8. Mason TharpTE13 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 94th of 221 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73273238th of 131Roster talent: 732, 38th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620633rd of 131Recruiting: 206, 33rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%44th of 130Returning production: 56%, 44th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.3+4.353rd of 131SP+ rating: +4.3, 53rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.19 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 ARIZQ4 9:06 4th & 1 at TTU 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at WSUQ2 0:00 4th & 9 at TTU 31, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.5 pts
3. vs COLOQ2 0:04 4th & 3 at COLO 35, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs COLOQ3 3:16 4th & 5 at TTU 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
5. vs COLOQ3 3:16 4th & 5 at TTU 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
6. at ARKQ3 9:24 4th & 1 at TTU 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at TCUQ4 11:13 4th & 3 at TCU 6, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at WSUQ3 5:32 4th & 11 at WSU 49, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

46th of 134 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. L

   WSU
3. W

   UNT
4. W

   ASU
5. W

   CIN
6. W

   ARIZ
7. L

   BAY
8. L

   TCU
9. W

   ISU
10. L

    COLO
11. W

    OKST
12. W

    WVU
13. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2024

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+0.50
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• ACUW 52-51 vs ACU98% → 87%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts −6
• WSUL 16-37 at WSU56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• UNTW 66-21 vs UNT81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −1
• ASUW 30-22 vs ASU65% → 98%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −2
• CINW 44-41 vs CIN64% → 84%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −1
• ARIZW 28-22 at ARIZ38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• BAYL 35-59 vs BAY65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• TCUL 34-35 at TCU38% → 19%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −4
• ISUW 23-22 at ISU17% → 87%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +8
• COLOL 27-41 vs COLO39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts +2
• OKSTW 56-48 at OKST63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• WVUW 52-15 vs WVU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43
• ARKL 26-39 at ARK61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2

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.