Texas

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1565th
  Defense+0.0278th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%30th
  Defense39.4%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3793rd
  Defense+1.1492nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense−0.0486th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2464th
  Defense+0.0970th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%19th
  Defense45.1%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%73rd
  Defense27.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8336th
  Defense2.6979th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.3%12th
  Defense21.4%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%43rd
  Defense17.9%83rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   OSU
2. W
   SJSU
3. W
   UTEP
4. W
   SHSU
5. L
   FLA
6. W
   OU
7. W
   UK
8. W
   MSST
9. W
   VAN
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    ARK
12. W
    TA&M
13. W
    MICH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas.

Players, 2025

1. Arch ManningQB370 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 22nd of 231 QBs
   1.79WAR1.14 to 2.47
2. Quintrevion WisnerRB134 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 98th of 365 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
3. Emmett Mosley VWR42 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 144th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Parker LivingstoneWR38 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 164th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
5. Jack EndriesTE44 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 32nd of 213 TEs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.19
6. Mason ShipleyPK14 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 52nd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Jack BouwmeesterP45 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 24th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.15
8. DeAndre Moore Jr.WR32 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 264th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9749744th of 134Roster talent: 974, 4th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2992993rd of 134Recruiting: 299, 3rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%74th of 132Returning production: 28%, 74th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.2+16.217th of 134SP+ rating: +16.2, 17th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.17 of the 0.21 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 UKQ4 0:57 4th & 1 at UK 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. at MSSTQ4 4:14 4th & 8 at MSST 8, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs OUQ4 11:33 4th & 3 at OU 37, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs ARKQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at ARK 26, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at UKQ3 12:53 4th & 1 at TEX 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at MSSTQ3 7:28 4th & 2 at TEX 20, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs OUQ2 4:24 4th & 3 at OU 3, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at UKQ3 2:05 4th & 6 at UK 35, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

44th of 136 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. L

   OSU
2. W

   SJSU
3. W

   UTEP
4. W

   SHSU
5. L

   FLA
6. W

   OU
7. W

   UK
8. W

   MSST
9. W

   VAN
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    ARK
12. W

    TA&M
13. W

    MICH

What moved it, 2025

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+1.32
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.22
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• OSUL 7-14 at OSU46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +1
• SJSUW 38-7 vs SJSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• UTEPW 27-10 vs UTEP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• SHSUW 55-0 vs SHSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FLAL 21-29 at FLA61% → 6%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• OUW 23-6 vs OU57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• UKW 16-13 at UK84% → 71%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard +36, Clock −6
• MSSTW 45-38 at MSST73% → 84%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +15
• VANW 34-31 vs VAN60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• UGAL 10-35 at UGA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• ARKW 52-37 vs ARK76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• TA&MW 27-17 vs TA&M41% → 97%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• MICHW 41-27 vs MICH64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +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.