Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2076th
  Defense+0.0383rd
• 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%74th
  Defense37.5%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2754th
  Defense+1.3028th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1467th
  Defense−0.1195th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2963rd
  Defense+0.1963rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%74th
  Defense42.3%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.
  Offense34.0%73rd
  Defense28.1%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2672nd
  Defense2.4298th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%48th
  Defense23.3%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense18.0%75th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   RICE
2. W
   ALA
3. W
   WYO
4. W
   BAY
5. W
   KU
6. L
   OU
7. W
   HOU
8. W
   BYU
9. W
   KSU
10. W
    TCU
11. W
    ISU
12. W
    TTU
13. W
    OKST
14. L
    WASH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2023

1. Quinn EwersQB349 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 35th of 250 QBs
   1.74WAR1.03 to 2.50
2. Jonathon BrooksRB169 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 20th of 383 RBs
   0.48WAR0.32 to 0.63
3. CJ BaxterRB133 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 83rd of 383 RBs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.38
4. Adonai MitchellWR59 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 100th of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.31
5. Ja'Tavion SandersTE41 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 23rd of 212 TEs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.26
6. Bert AuburnPK23 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 9th of 113 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Ryan SanbornP28 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 46th of 103 punters
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Maalik MurphyQB52 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 219th of 250 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.04 to 0.20

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9139136th of 130Roster talent: 913, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2762767th of 130Recruiting: 276, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%51st of 128Returning production: 61%, 51st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.2+23.26th of 130SP+ rating: +23.2, 6th 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, 2023

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 0.05 of the 0.06 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 HOUQ4 11:32 4th & 3 at TEX 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at WASHQ4 1:09 4th & 4 at WASH 7, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs OUQ4 1:17 4th & 4 at OU 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at TCUQ4 8:53 4th & 3 at TCU 31, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs KSUQ3 4:13 4th & 3 at KSU 31, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at BAYQ2 14:05 4th & 3 at TEX 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at ALAQ1 4:42 4th & 4 at ALA 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at HOUQ2 2:33 4th & 6 at HOU 26, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

30th of 133 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

   RICE
2. W

   ALA
3. W

   WYO
4. W

   BAY
5. W

   KU
6. L

   OU
7. W

   HOU
8. W

   BYU
9. W

   KSU
10. W

    TCU
11. W

    ISU
12. W

    TTU
13. W

    OKST
14. L

    WASH

What moved it, 2023

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+1.72
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.22
• Timeouts−0.11
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.92

Game by game

• RICEW 37-10 vs RICE98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ALAW 34-24 at ALA32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• WYOW 31-10 vs WYO98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• BAYW 38-6 at BAY87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• KUW 40-14 vs KU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• OUL 30-34 vs OU63% → 19%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• HOUW 31-24 at HOU95% → 95%Before kickoff +45 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• BYUW 35-6 vs BYU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• KSUW 33-30 vs KSU66% → 82%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −18
• TCUW 29-26 at TCU81% → 94%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• ISUW 26-16 at ISU73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +7
• TTUW 57-7 vs TTU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17
• OKSTW 49-21 vs OKST87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +15
• WASHL 31-37 at WASH60% → 15%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2

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.