Texas Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1979th
  Defense−0.2799th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%56th
  Defense30.1%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3589th
  Defense+1.0997th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1470th
  Defense−0.3299th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2772nd
  Defense−0.2099th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%50th
  Defense35.5%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.6%71st
  Defense21.8%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8741st
  Defense1.9499th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%57th
  Defense23.0%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%55th
  Defense23.3%99th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UAPB
2. W
   KENT
3. W
   ORST
4. W
   UTAH
5. W
   HOU
6. W
   KU
7. L
   ASU
8. W
   OKST
9. W
   KSU
10. W
    BYU
11. W
    UCF
12. W
    WVU
13. W
    BYU
14. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2025

1. Behren MortonQB249 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 99th of 231 QBs
   0.82WAR0.28 to 1.31
2. Will HammondQB90 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 154th of 231 QBs
   0.29WAR0.12 to 0.46
3. Cameron DickeyRB145 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 48th of 365 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.37
4. J'Koby WilliamsRB124 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 63rd of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.36
5. Reggie VirgilWR57 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 44th of 451 WRs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.35
6. Terrance Carter Jr.TE57 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 11th of 213 TEs
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.28
7. Stone HarringtonPK17 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 42nd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Caleb DouglasWR63 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 212th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.05 to 0.23

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75775729th of 134Roster talent: 757, 29th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421429th of 134Recruiting: 214, 29th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%25th of 132Returning production: 59%, 25th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +27.6+27.63rd of 134SP+ rating: +27.6, 3rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 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. at ASUQ4 11:24 4th & 6 at ASU 8, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
2. at KSUQ4 10:35 4th & 9 at KSU 37, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. at UTAHQ2 3:42 4th & 4 at TTU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at UTAHQ3 4:46 4th & 9 at UTAH 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at HOUQ3 4:16 4th & 6 at HOU 35, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at KSUQ4 5:00 4th & 6 at KSU 47, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at HOUQ3 1:55 4th & 3 at TTU 30, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs OREQ2 10:53 4th & 8 at ORE 36, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

56th of 136 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

   UAPB
2. W

   KENT
3. W

   ORST
4. W

   UTAH
5. W

   HOU
6. W

   KU
7. L

   ASU
8. W

   OKST
9. W

   KSU
10. W

    BYU
11. W

    UCF
12. W

    WVU
13. W

    BYU
14. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2025

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+1.20
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• UAPBW 67-7 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• KENTW 62-14 vs KENT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ORSTW 45-14 vs ORST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• UTAHW 34-10 at UTAH46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +12
• HOUW 35-11 at HOU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• KUW 42-17 vs KU84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −1
• ASUL 22-26 at ASU71% → 19%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +5
• OKSTW 42-0 vs OKST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• KSUW 43-20 at KSU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• BYUW 29-7 vs BYU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• UCFW 48-9 vs UCF95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• WVUW 49-0 at WVU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• BYUW 34-7 vs BYU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• OREL 0-23 vs ORE54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −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.