Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0219th
  Defense−0.0695th
• 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.
  Offense39.5%16th
  Defense37.7%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1845th
  Defense+1.1374th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0753rd
  Defense−0.0889th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0016th
  Defense+0.0283rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%22nd
  Defense41.6%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%17th
  Defense30.0%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6419th
  Defense2.4886th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%50th
  Defense26.3%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%43rd
  Defense18.4%74th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   MD
2. W
   SJSU
3. L
   USC
4. W
   ISU
5. W
   KSU
6. L
   OU
7. L
   OKST
8. W
   BAY
9. L
   TCU
10. W
    KU
11. W
    WVU
12. L
    TTU
13. W
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2017

1. Sam EhlingerQB353 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 76th of 226 QBs
   1.02WAR0.44 to 1.70
2. Shane BuecheleQB217 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 134th of 226 QBs
   0.43WAR0.05 to 0.84
3. Michael DicksonP76 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 1st of 95 punters
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.45
4. Chris Warren IIIRB75 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 174th of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
5. Collin JohnsonWR70 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 84th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
6. Daniel YoungRB64 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 220th of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
7. Joshua RowlandPK16 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 55th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Kyle PorterRB66 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 238th of 352 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81181113th of 130Roster talent: 811, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25325312th of 130Recruiting: 253, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%56th of 128Returning production: 64%, 56th 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+10.630th of 128SP+ rating: +10.6, 30th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 13 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.31 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 OUQ4 14:05 4th & 1 at TEX 36, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at BAYQ3 5:55 4th & 1 at BAY 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs OKSTQ4 3:04 4th & 3 at TEX 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs MDQ4 3:39 4th & 19 at TEX 24, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
5. at USCQ4 1:07 4th & 10 at USC 28, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
6. at MIZQ2 0:59 4th & 18 at MIZ 36, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. at WVUQ4 7:26 4th & 6 at WVU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs OUQ4 11:26 4th & 8 at OU 27, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

77th of 130 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

   MD
2. W

   SJSU
3. L

   USC
4. W

   ISU
5. W

   KSU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   OKST
8. W

   BAY
9. L

   TCU
10. W

    KU
11. W

    WVU
12. L

    TTU
13. W

    MIZ

What moved it, 2017

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+0.23
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• MDL 41-51 vs MD89% → 3%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• SJSUW 56-0 vs SJSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USCL 24-27 at USC12% → 21%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +15
• ISUW 17-7 at ISU62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• KSUW 40-34 vs KSU66% → 93%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts −14
• OUL 24-29 vs OU25% → 10%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −33, Clock −3
• OKSTL 10-13 vs OKST31% → 38%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −19
• BAYW 38-7 at BAY77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• TCUL 7-24 at TCU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• KUW 42-27 vs KU98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +6
• WVUW 28-14 at WVU46% → 98%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• TTUL 23-27 vs TTU73% → 7%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• MIZW 33-16 at MIZ40% → 99%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, 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.