Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2687th
  Defense+0.1640th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%67th
  Defense45.6%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3579th
  Defense+1.2074th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2591st
  Defense+0.0953rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2971st
  Defense+0.2533rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%72nd
  Defense50.9%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%55th
  Defense32.7%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4991st
  Defense3.1436th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%91st
  Defense18.8%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%74th
  Defense14.4%21st

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, 2021

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2021

1. Casey ThompsonQB267 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 76th of 219 QBs
   1.28WAR0.71 to 1.75
2. Bijan RobinsonRB196 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 15th of 387 RBs
   0.86WAR0.67 to 1.06
3. Hudson CardQB89 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 155th of 219 QBs
   0.35WAR0.16 to 0.54
4. Roschon JohnsonRB95 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 142nd of 387 RBs
   0.32WAR0.25 to 0.40
5. Cameron DickerPK60 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 3rd of 128 kickers
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.34
6. Xavier WorthyWR66 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 56th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.28
7. Jordan WhittingtonWR28 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 276th of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Joshua MooreWR31 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 299th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  87487411th of 130Roster talent: 874, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2742747th of 130Recruiting: 274, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%114th of 128Returning production: 44%, 114th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.5+8.548th of 130SP+ rating: +8.5, 48th 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, 2021

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.24 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 KSUQ3 1:52 4th & 1 at KSU 21, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at TCUQ3 7:19 4th & 1 at TCU 10, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs KSUQ3 9:52 4th & 1 at TEX 15, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs KSUQ4 12:24 4th & 2 at TEX 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. vs KSUQ4 7:32 4th & 4 at KSU 4, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. vs OUQ4 4:39 4th & 11 at OU 24, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
7. at BAYQ4 9:23 4th & 11 at BAY 49, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
8. vs KSUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at KSU 6, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

117th 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

   UL
2. L

   ARK
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   TTU
5. W

   TCU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   OKST
8. L

   BAY
9. L

   ISU
10. L

    KU
11. L

    WVU
12. W

    KSU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.85
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• ULW 38-18 vs UL74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• ARKL 21-40 at ARK67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −51, Possession & field position −1
• RICEW 58-0 vs RICE95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• TTUW 70-35 vs TTU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• TCUW 32-27 at TCU58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• OUL 48-55 vs OU36% → 5%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• OKSTL 24-32 vs OKST60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• BAYL 24-31 at BAY43% → 7%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• ISUL 7-30 at ISU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• KUL 56-57 vs KU96% → 82%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −14: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts −10
• WVUL 23-31 at WVU40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −3
• KSUW 22-17 vs KSU55% → 88%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +24, Clock +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.