Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0944th
  Defense+0.1139th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%24th
  Defense47.5%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1636th
  Defense+1.1084th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1789th
  Defense+0.1028th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense+0.1451st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%39th
  Defense51.3%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%18th
  Defense38.0%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0980th
  Defense3.314th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%64th
  Defense15.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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. L
   ND
2. W
   RICE
3. L
   CAL
4. L
   OKST
5. L
   TCU
6. W
   OU
7. W
   KSU
8. L
   ISU
9. W
   KU
10. L
    WVU
11. L
    TTU
12. W
    BAY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2015

1. Tyrone SwoopesQB114 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 138th of 205 QBs
   0.45WAR0.24 to 0.69
2. Chris Warren IIIRB75 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 146th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
3. Johnathan GrayRB107 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 163rd of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
4. D'Onta ForemanRB72 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 171st of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Nick RosePK14 plays · +0.521 pts/play · 38th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Jerrod HeardWR96 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 161st of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.02 to 0.25
7. John BurtWR34 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 272nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Michael DicksonP60 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 69th of 92 punters
   0.05WAR−0.05 to 0.14

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82182111th of 128Roster talent: 821, 11th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25625612th of 128Recruiting: 256, 12th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%83rd of 127Returning production: 50%, 83rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.7+3.762nd of 128SP+ rating: +3.7, 62nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.15 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 BAYQ4 3:59 4th & 3 at BAY 19, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at BAYQ3 8:41 4th & 3 at BAY 42, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs KSUQ4 5:50 4th & 1 at TEX 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs OKSTQ4 9:12 4th & 3 at TEX 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs KSUQ4 10:31 4th & 4 at KSU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs CALQ4 10:25 4th & 17 at CAL 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. vs KSUQ3 7:12 4th & 2 at TEX 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at BAYQ2 2:01 4th & 5 at BAY 35, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

78th 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. L

   ND
2. W

   RICE
3. L

   CAL
4. L

   OKST
5. L

   TCU
6. W

   OU
7. W

   KSU
8. L

   ISU
9. W

   KU
10. L

    WVU
11. L

    TTU
12. W

    BAY

What moved it, 2015

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−1.15
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.05
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• NDL 3-38 at ND27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +1
• RICEW 42-28 vs RICE85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −1
• CALL 44-45 vs CAL38% → 22%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −32, Clock −4
• OKSTL 27-30 vs OKST37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• TCUL 7-50 at TCU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• OUW 24-17 vs OU16% → 97%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• KSUW 23-9 vs KSU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• ISUL 0-24 at ISU75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −56, Possession & field position +2
• KUW 59-20 vs KU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WVUL 20-38 at WVU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35
• TTUL 45-48 vs TTU54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• BAYW 23-17 at BAY10% → 90%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4

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.