Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2385th
  Defense+0.0766th
• 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.
  Offense48.1%89th
  Defense38.9%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1825th
  Defense+1.2644th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2086th
  Defense0.0080th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2766th
  Defense+0.1470th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.2%92nd
  Defense42.6%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.
  Offense32.0%55th
  Defense31.7%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3081st
  Defense2.9175th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%64th
  Defense14.1%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.2%95th
  Defense15.7%44th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ULM
2. L
   ALA
3. W
   UTSA
4. L
   TTU
5. W
   WVU
6. W
   OU
7. W
   ISU
8. L
   OKST
9. W
   KSU
10. L
    TCU
11. W
    KU
12. W
    BAY
13. L
    WASH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2022

1. Quinn EwersQB278 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 87th of 234 QBs
   0.91WAR0.28 to 1.55
2. Bijan RobinsonRB220 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 7th of 384 RBs
   0.74WAR0.55 to 0.94
3. Hudson CardQB103 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 123rd of 234 QBs
   0.50WAR0.25 to 0.71
4. Roschon JohnsonRB79 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 156th of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
5. Jordan WhittingtonWR58 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 108th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
6. Ja'Tavion SandersTE57 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 13th of 214 TEs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
7. Xavier WorthyWR86 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 168th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.03 to 0.27
8. Bert AuburnPK19 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 24th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8878876th of 129Roster talent: 887, 6th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2712717th of 129Recruiting: 271, 7th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%68th of 128Returning production: 56%, 68th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.1+23.17th of 129SP+ rating: +23.1, 7th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 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. vs TCUQ2 0:01 4th & 1 at TEX 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at TTUQ4 5:26 4th & 3 at TEX 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs TCUQ4 9:40 4th & 10 at TCU 10, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. at WASHQ2 9:25 4th & 1 at TEX 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs ALAQ3 6:27 4th & 2 at ALA 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs ALAQ4 12:55 4th & 4 at ALA 6, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at WASHQ2 4:50 4th & 3 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs TCUQ3 0:58 4th & 4 at TCU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

110th of 131 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

   ULM
2. L

   ALA
3. W

   UTSA
4. L

   TTU
5. W

   WVU
6. W

   OU
7. W

   ISU
8. L

   OKST
9. W

   KSU
10. L

    TCU
11. W

    KU
12. W

    BAY
13. L

    WASH

What moved it, 2022

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+0.03
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.94

Game by game

• ULMW 52-10 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ALAL 19-20 vs ALA8% → 22%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +14: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• UTSAW 41-20 vs UTSA83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• TTUL 34-37 at TTU70% → 21%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• WVUW 38-20 vs WVU76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• OUW 49-0 at OU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +32
• ISUW 24-21 vs ISU88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• OKSTL 34-41 at OKST68% → 3%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• KSUW 34-27 at KSU64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• TCUL 10-17 vs TCU71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• KUW 55-14 at KU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27
• BAYW 38-27 vs BAY81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 20-27 at WASH63% → 6%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −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.