Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2591st
  Defense+0.1244th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%85th
  Defense45.1%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2567th
  Defense+1.1572nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2192nd
  Defense0.0067th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2977th
  Defense+0.2431st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.8%84th
  Defense49.8%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.5%84th
  Defense35.3%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4798th
  Defense2.9149th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.6%95th
  Defense21.4%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.0%55th
  Defense18.3%28th

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, 2019

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2019

1. Sam EhlingerQB507 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 4th of 228 QBs
   2.60WAR1.85 to 3.37
2. Keaontay IngramRB151 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 72nd of 349 RBs
   0.47WAR0.37 to 0.59
3. Devin DuvernayWR110 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 3rd of 439 WRs
   0.42WAR0.26 to 0.57
4. Roschon JohnsonRB112 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 99th of 349 RBs
   0.40WAR0.32 to 0.47
5. Collin JohnsonWR56 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 48th of 439 WRs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.30
6. Cameron DickerPK13 plays · +0.448 pts/play · 71st of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Brennan EaglesWR46 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 247th of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.13
8. Ryan BujcevskiP24 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 70th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8788787th of 130Roster talent: 878, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2722727th of 130Recruiting: 272, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%43rd of 130Returning production: 71%, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.0+12.026th of 130SP+ rating: +12.0, 26th 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, 2019

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 0.04 of the 0.08 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 ISUQ2 7:06 4th & 1 at TEX 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs OKSTQ4 7:22 4th & 2 at OKST 39, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs LSUQ2 4:35 4th & 5 at LSU 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at ISUQ4 5:37 4th & 7 at ISU 7, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs KSUQ1 3:19 4th & 1 at TEX 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TCUQ3 12:23 4th & 3 at TEX 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at TCUQ1 6:32 4th & 1 at TCU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at WVUQ3 10:02 4th & 3 at TEX 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

70th 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. W

   LT
2. L

   LSU
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   OKST
5. W

   WVU
6. L

   OU
7. W

   KU
8. L

   TCU
9. W

   KSU
10. L

    ISU
11. L

    BAY
12. W

    TTU
13. W

    UTAH

What moved it, 2019

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+0.18
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• LTW 45-14 vs LT91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• LSUL 38-45 vs LSU29% → 5%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• RICEW 48-13 at RICE98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• OKSTW 36-30 vs OKST75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• WVUW 42-31 at WVU82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• OUL 27-34 vs OU24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• KUW 50-48 vs KU93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +13
• TCUL 27-37 at TCU49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 27-24 vs KSU75% → 94%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −1
• ISUL 21-23 at ISU37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• BAYL 10-24 at BAY43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position −1
• TTUW 49-24 vs TTU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• UTAHW 38-10 vs UTAH32% → 100%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts +1

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.