Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1667th
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%76th
  Defense38.5%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3065th
  Defense+1.0498th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0635th
  Defense−0.0998th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2573rd
  Defense−0.0596th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%68th
  Defense43.5%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%84th
  Defense28.2%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8829th
  Defense2.7875th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%20th
  Defense21.1%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.1%20th
  Defense21.1%95th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   CSU
2. W
   MICH
3. W
   UTSA
4. W
   ULM
5. W
   MSST
6. W
   OU
7. L
   UGA
8. W
   VAN
9. W
   FLA
10. W
    ARK
11. W
    UK
12. W
    TA&M
13. L
    UGA
14. W
    CLEM
15. W
    ASU
16. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2024

1. Quinn EwersQB405 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 13th of 232 QBs
   2.31WAR1.57 to 3.06
2. Quintrevion WisnerRB241 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 21st of 373 RBs
   0.51WAR0.35 to 0.68
3. Jaydon BlueRB114 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 92nd of 373 RBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.39
4. Gunnar HelmTE59 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 3rd of 221 TEs
   0.27WAR0.14 to 0.41
5. Matthew GoldenWR52 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 20th of 452 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.37
6. Bert AuburnPK19 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 53rd of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
7. Silas BoldenWR16 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 258th of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. Isaiah BondWR28 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 350th of 452 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.06 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9549544th of 131Roster talent: 954, 4th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2802805th of 131Recruiting: 280, 5th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%64th of 130Returning production: 47%, 64th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.1+24.17th of 131SP+ rating: +24.1, 7th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 TA&MQ3 12:54 4th & 3 at TA&M 40, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs UGAQ4 5:26 4th & 12 at UGA 29, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs UGAQ4 1:10 4th & 6 at UGA 11, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at ASUQ2 8:54 4th & 4 at ASU 4, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs CLEMQ3 8:10 4th & 4 at CLEM 4, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs UKQ3 8:38 4th & 2 at TEX 14, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at TA&MQ4 1:49 4th & 3 at TEX 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UGAQ2 2:55 4th & 7 at TEX 48, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

62nd of 134 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

   CSU
2. W

   MICH
3. W

   UTSA
4. W

   ULM
5. W

   MSST
6. W

   OU
7. L

   UGA
8. W

   VAN
9. W

   FLA
10. W

    ARK
11. W

    UK
12. W

    TA&M
13. L

    UGA
14. W

    CLEM
15. W

    ASU
16. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.87
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.06
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.96

Game by game

• CSUW 52-0 vs CSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MICHW 31-12 at MICH73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• UTSAW 56-7 vs UTSA99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ULMW 51-3 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• MSSTW 35-13 vs MSST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• OUW 34-3 at OU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• UGAL 15-30 vs UGA61% → 2%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• VANW 27-24 at VAN90% → 95%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• FLAW 49-17 vs FLA93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• ARKW 20-10 at ARK83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• UKW 31-14 vs UK91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• TA&MW 17-7 at TA&M64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• UGAL 19-22 vs UGA57% → 12%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• CLEMW 38-24 vs CLEM81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• ASUW 39-31 at ASU83% → 87%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +13
• OSUL 14-28 vs OSU38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −43, 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.