Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1147th
  Defense+0.1337th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense43.3%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.002nd
  Defense+1.1850th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1674th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0728th
  Defense+0.2133rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.1%95th
  Defense47.0%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.
  Offense29.1%11th
  Defense36.1%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3391st
  Defense2.9254th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.5%99th
  Defense17.7%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%76th
  Defense17.8%71st

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2016

1. D'Onta ForemanRB315 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 1st of 347 RBs
   1.37WAR0.92 to 1.82
2. Shane BuecheleQB425 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 54th of 218 QBs
   1.32WAR0.64 to 2.07
3. Tyrone SwoopesQB55 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 148th of 218 QBs
   0.30WAR0.14 to 0.46
4. Michael DicksonP59 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 11th of 82 punters
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Chris Warren IIIRB55 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 163rd of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.28
6. Collin JohnsonWR37 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 202nd of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Trent DominguePK21 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 55th of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Jake OliverWR36 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83983911th of 128Roster talent: 839, 11th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2642649th of 128Recruiting: 264, 9th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%27th of 128Returning production: 86%, 27th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.6+10.636th of 128SP+ rating: +10.6, 36th 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.14 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 CALQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at CAL 36, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs NDQ4 13:45 4th & 2 at TEX 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs WVUQ3 10:37 4th & 2 at WVU 20, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at KUQ4 10:36 4th & 2 at TEX 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at CALQ4 1:41 4th & 10 at TEX 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at KUQ4 0:58 4th & 5 at KU 32, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs BAYQ3 12:13 4th & 4 at BAY 8, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs TCUQ3 4:05 4th & 3 at TEX 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

123rd 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

   ND
2. W

   UTEP
3. L

   CAL
4. L

   OKST
5. L

   OU
6. W

   ISU
7. L

   KSU
8. W

   BAY
9. W

   TTU
10. L

    WVU
11. L

    KU
12. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.61
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• NDW 50-47 vs ND48% → 85%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −23
• UTEPW 41-7 vs UTEP96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• CALL 43-50 at CAL75% → 3%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −4
• OKSTL 31-49 at OKST49% → 2%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +1
• OUL 40-45 at OU35% → 9%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2
• ISUW 27-6 vs ISU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• KSUL 21-24 at KSU51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• BAYW 35-34 vs BAY47% → 79%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +1
• TTUW 45-37 at TTU66% → 93%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• WVUL 20-24 vs WVU53% → 18%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• KUL 21-24 at KU93% → 17%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +21
• TCUL 9-31 vs TCU68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2

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.