Texas

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+0.1027th
  Defense+0.0588th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%35th
  Defense39.4%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1015th
  Defense+1.0594th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0324th
  Defense+0.1242nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1946th
  Defense0.0098th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%43rd
  Defense45.1%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%28th
  Defense27.6%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7538th
  Defense3.0627th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%44th
  Defense16.2%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense1.5%19th

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 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
   UNT
2. L
   BYU
3. L
   UCLA
4. W
   KU
5. L
   BAY
6. L
   OU
7. W
   ISU
8. L
   KSU
9. W
   TTU
10. W
    WVU
11. W
    OKST
12. L
    TCU
13. L
    ARK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2014

1. Tyrone SwoopesQB405 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 61st of 199 QBs
   1.50WAR0.93 to 2.12
2. Malcolm BrownRB167 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 57th of 350 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.43
3. John HarrisWR83 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 25th of 469 WRs
   0.32WAR0.16 to 0.45
4. Johnathan GrayRB138 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 130th of 350 RBs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.30
5. Nick RosePK16 plays · +0.521 pts/play · 18th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Jaxon ShipleyWR73 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 117th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
7. William RussP54 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 54th of 94 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
8. Marcus JohnsonWR38 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 297th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.12

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'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'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 0.13 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 BAYQ3 12:40 4th & 1 at TEX 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs ISUQ3 13:47 4th & 1 at TEX 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs WVUQ2 2:18 4th & 2 at WVU 28, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs UCLAQ3 0:10 4th & 3 at TEX 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UCLAQ3 8:00 4th & 4 at UCLA 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at OKSTQ2 2:34 4th & 4 at OKST 4, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs TCUQ2 14:02 4th & 1 at TEX 39, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at OUQ2 0:48 4th & 3 at OU 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

75th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Texas's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UNT
2. L

   BYU
3. L

   UCLA
4. W

   KU
5. L

   BAY
6. L

   OU
7. W

   ISU
8. L

   KSU
9. W

   TTU
10. W

    WVU
11. W

    OKST
12. L

    TCU
13. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Texas'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−0.53
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• UNTW 38-7 vs UNT96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• BYUL 7-41 vs BYU67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −63, Clock −4
• UCLAL 17-20 vs UCLA32% → 6%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• KUW 23-0 at KU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +26
• BAYL 7-28 vs BAY18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• OUL 26-31 at OU16% → 11%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −2
• ISUW 48-45 vs ISU79% → 89%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +2
• KSUL 0-23 at KSU21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• TTUW 34-13 at TTU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• WVUW 33-16 vs WVU36% → 97%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position −2
• OKSTW 28-7 at OKST50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• TCUL 10-48 vs TCU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −1
• ARKL 7-31 vs ARK38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Texas's side.

Closest call

TEX 63-56 TTU (2020) - Texas dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.