Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1981st
  Defense+0.1245th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%74th
  Defense44.7%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1219th
  Defense+1.1865th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0852nd
  Defense+0.0176th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3385th
  Defense+0.2523rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%71st
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%74th
  Defense34.9%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9858th
  Defense2.7473rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%50th
  Defense22.4%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%82nd
  Defense18.2%77th

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, 2018

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
   TLSA
3. W
   USC
4. W
   TCU
5. W
   KSU
6. W
   OU
7. W
   BAY
8. L
   OKST
9. L
   WVU
10. W
    TTU
11. W
    ISU
12. W
    KU
13. L
    OU
14. W
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2018

1. Sam EhlingerQB558 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 4th of 225 QBs
   2.79WAR1.98 to 3.53
2. Tre WatsonRB195 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 34th of 351 RBs
   0.62WAR0.51 to 0.71
3. Keaontay IngramRB156 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 55th of 351 RBs
   0.51WAR0.42 to 0.60
4. Lil'Jordan HumphreyWR101 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 4th of 434 WRs
   0.36WAR0.22 to 0.51
5. Collin JohnsonWR89 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 14th of 434 WRs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.44
6. Cameron DickerPK23 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 6th of 112 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
7. Shane BuecheleQB47 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 198th of 225 QBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
8. Devin DuvernayWR56 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 160th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.19

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8618619th of 130Roster talent: 861, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2682689th of 130Recruiting: 268, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%61st of 129Returning production: 65%, 61st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.3+11.331st of 130SP+ rating: +11.3, 31st of 130 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, 2018

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 0.10 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 WVUQ4 9:38 4th & 1 at WVU 21, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. vs ISUQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at ISU 5, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at UGAQ3 11:11 4th & 2 at TEX 47, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at MDQ4 14:18 4th & 4 at midfield, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at KSUQ3 9:22 4th & 3 at TEX 48, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at OUQ4 5:22 4th & 3 at TEX 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TCUQ2 10:10 4th & 2 at TCU 17, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs USCQ1 6:19 4th & 3 at USC 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

21st 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

   TLSA
3. W

   USC
4. W

   TCU
5. W

   KSU
6. W

   OU
7. W

   BAY
8. L

   OKST
9. L

   WVU
10. W

    TTU
11. W

    ISU
12. W

    KU
13. L

    OU
14. W

    UGA

What moved it, 2018

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+1.90
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.04

Game by game

• MDL 29-34 at MD83% → 7%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +1
• TLSAW 28-21 vs TLSA93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• USCW 37-14 vs USC65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36
• TCUW 31-16 vs TCU50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 19-14 at KSU78% → 93%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +1
• OUW 48-45 at OU35% → 87%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• BAYW 23-17 vs BAY84% → 79%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position −3
• OKSTL 35-38 at OKST65% → 7%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −3
• WVUL 41-42 vs WVU53% → 24%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• TTUW 41-34 at TTU67% → 89%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• ISUW 24-10 vs ISU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• KUW 24-17 at KU87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +24, Clock +2
• OUL 27-39 at OU29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +1
• UGAW 28-21 at UGA18% → 96%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +56, 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.