We can go ahead and file this in the "who cares" cabinet next to last week’s Kansas review.
This review is based off of Bill Connelly's Five Factors to winning football games. The five factors are efficiency, explosiveness, field position, turnovers, and finishing drives.
End of half drives and garbage time situations are not included in any of the efficiency, explosiveness, drive finishing, or field position calculations. Overtime is not included in the field position and drive finishing statistics.
This advanced stat glossary will come handy to those of you who are less familiar with the five factors.
Efficiency and Explosiveness
| Overall | |||
| Team | Success Rate | Pass SR | Run SR |
| Texas | 30.00% | 31.03% | 29.27% |
| TCU | 50.00% | 39.39% | 60.00% |
| National Avg. | 40.20% | 40.20% | 41.00% |
| Standard Downs | |||
| Texas | 36.17% | 37.50% | 35.48% |
| TCU | 65.22% | 66.67% | 64.29% |
| Passing Downs | |||
| Texas | 17.39% | 23.08% | 10.00% |
| TCU | 18.18% | 6.67% | 42.86% |
| Team | 1Q SR | 2Q SR | 3Q SR | 4Q SR |
| Texas | 40.00% | 29.63% | 29.41% | 0.00% |
| TCU | 57.14% | 15.38% | 51.72% | 75.00% |
I use yards per successful play to measure explosiveness. I like this statistic because it isolates efficiency from explosiveness by looking at the magnitude of successful plays only.
I have included the explosive percentile to add context to these numbers. (the number in parenthesis). The explosiveness percentile is based on play-by-play data from the 2015 season.
| Overall | |||
| Team | Yards per Successful Play | Yards per Successful Run | Yards per Successful Pass |
| Texas | 13.67 (67%) | 11.42 (75%) | 16.67 (64%) |
| TCU | 13.06 (59%) | 12.9 (84%) | 13.31 (32%) |
| Standard Downs | |||
| Texas | 14.24 | 10.91 | 20.33 |
| TCU | 11.77 | 10.67 | 13.42 |
| Passing Downs | |||
| Texas | 11.25 | 17 | 9.33 |
| TCU | 20.4 | 22.5 | 12 |
Texas Offense vs. TCU Defense
The Longhorns had (by far) their most inefficient performance of the 2016 season, and as a result they finished the game averaging only 4.9 yards per non-garbage time play.
Texas was limited to a sub-50% standard downs success rate for the first time all season against TCU. In fact, the Horned Frogs were able to hold Texas to season low standard downs success rates in both the passing game and the running game. The Longhorns averted total disaster on standard downs by generating a few big plays when they were on schedule, particularly through the air.
Passing downs were ugly for the Texas offense, as per usual. The Longhorns struggled throwing the ball and running the ball when they were behind the chains, and they did not offset their inefficiency with sufficient explosiveness.
TCU Offense vs. Texas Defense
The Texas defense played extremely well in the first half (held TCU to 3.3 ypp), but ultimately wilted in the second half due to their inability to stop TCU’s run game.
The Horned Frogs did essentially whatever they wanted to on standard downs, with +60% success rates when they ran or threw. Texas did a decent job of limiting explosiveness of standard downs, but that doesn’t matter all that much if you allow your opponent to have a "successful" play on nearly two-thirds of their standard downs snaps.
For the most part, Texas did a good job of limiting TCU once they forced the Horned Frogs into passing downs. TCU was extremely inefficient on passing downs, they average only 4.4 yards per PD play despite the fact that they were able to gain large chunks of yardage on the few successful PD plays that they generated. The Horned Frogs did most of their passing downs damage on the ground, averaging 13 yards per non-garbage time carry on passing downs.
Field Position
| Team | Average Starting Field Position | Net Punting Avg. | Net Kickoffs |
| Texas | 71.92 | 48.13 | 31.25 |
| TCU | 82.25 | 37.89 | 45.5 |
The Longhorns enjoyed a healthy field position advantage over the Horned Frogs as Michael Dickson made a strong final statement for his Ray Guy candidacy.
Turnovers
This table is based off of the back-of-the-envelope turnover luck calculation that I wrote about in a previous review.
| Team | Passes Defensed | Fumbles Forced | Expected Turnovers Forced | Actual | Difference | Turnover Luck |
| TCU | 7 | 0 | 1.4 | 1 | -0.4 | -0.5 |
| Texas | 4 | 1 | 1.3 | 1 | -0.3 | 0.5 |
This was an incredibly clean game as far as turnovers were concerned. There was only one fumble the entire contest, and neither team defensed an inordinate number of passes. An even turnover margin is pretty reflective of the relative turnover opportunities created by each team.
Drive Finishing
| Teams | Drives | Scoring Opportunites | Points per Scoring Opportunity |
| Texas | 13 | 6 | 1.50 |
| TCU | 13 | 6 | 5.17 |
TCU did a good job of converting their scoring opportunities into points, and Texas… did not. The Longhorns’ offense reached 2015 levels of incompetence as soon as they got into the redzone, producing one zero touchdowns, one two failed forth down conversions, and four short field goal attempts.
Individual Statistics
TCU
| Cmp | Att. | Yds. | TD | Int. | Yards per attempt | Success Rate | |
| K. Hill | 15 | 29 | 150 | 0 | 1 | 4.69 | 37.50% |
| F. Sawyer | 1 | 1 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 28.00 | 100.00% |
| Rushes | Yards | Yards per Attempt | Success Rate | Opp. Rate | Highlight Yards/Opp. | |
| K. Hicks | 16 | 56 | 3.50 | 46.67% | 40.00% | 0.83 |
| T. Johnson | 11 | 68 | 6.18 | 45.45% | 45.45% | 2.43 |
| K. Hill | 9 | 96 | 10.67 | 66.67% | 66.67% | 7.92 |
| D. Anderson | 3 | 103 | 34.33 | 66.67% | 100.00% | 27.50 |
| F. Sawyer | 2 | 7 | 3.50 | 50.00% | 50.00% | 2.00 |
| D. Green | 1 | -5 | -5.00 | 0.00% | 0.00% | N/A |
| Targets | Catches | Catch Rate | Yards | Yards per Target | Yards per Catch | Success Rate | |
| K. Hicks | 6 | 5 | 83.33% | 31 | 5.17 | 6.20 | 50.00% |
| D. Walsh | 3 | 2 | 66.67% | 42 | 14.00 | 21.00 | 66.67% |
| T. Williams | 3 | 2 | 66.67% | 19 | 6.33 | 9.50 | 66.67% |
| J. Diarse | 3 | 2 | 66.67% | 17 | 5.67 | 8.50 | 66.67% |
| J. Austin | 3 | 1 | 33.33% | 13 | 4.33 | 13.00 | 33.33% |
| E. Porter | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00% |
| C. Hunt | 2 | 2 | 100.00% | 19 | 9.50 | 9.50 | 50.00% |
| D. White | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 25 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 100.00% |
| D. Gray | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00% |
Texas
| Cmp | Att. | Yds. | TD | Int. | Yards per attempt | Success Rate | |
| S. Buechele | 16 | 39 | 218 | 0 | 1 | 5.07 | 31.03% |
| Rushes | Yards | Yards per Attempt | Success Rate | Opp. Rate | Highlight Yards/Opp. | |
| D. Foreman | 31 | 165 | 5.32 | 34.38% | 28.13% | 7.22 |
| S. Buechele | 5 | 15 | 3.00 | 0.00% | 20.00% | 4.50 |
| K. Porter | 3 | 14 | 4.67 | 33.33% | 33.33% | 1.50 |
| T. Swoopes | 2 | 15 | 7.50 | 0.00% | 50.00% | 4.50 |
| Targets | Catches | Catch Rate | Yards | Yards per Target | Yards per Catch | Success Rate | |
| D. Leonard | 9 | 3 | 33.33% | 19 | 2.11 | 6.33 | 22.22% |
| C. Johnson | 8 | 4 | 50.00% | 51 | 6.38 | 12.75 | 25.00% |
| D. Duvernay | 7 | 3 | 42.86% | 73 | 10.43 | 24.33 | 42.86% |
| J. Warrick | 5 | 3 | 60.00% | 26 | 5.20 | 8.67 | 20.00% |
| J. Oliver | 4 | 2 | 50.00% | 29 | 7.25 | 14.50 | 0.00% |
| A. Beck | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 20 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 100.00% |
| J. Heard | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00% |
| A. Foreman | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00% |
*Notes: Sacks are counted as passing attempts and are factored into the yards per attempt figure presented with the passing stats.
Opportunity Rate is the percentage of a runner's carries that gains at least 5 yards. It is a measure of a runner's efficiency, although I also like to use success rate to judge a runner's efficiency.
Highlight Yards per Opportunity is a measure of a running back's explosiveness. You can find its definition in the advanced stats glossary that I linked earlier in this post. The national average for highlight yards per carry is about 5 yards. For more context on these rushing stats, I encourage you to check out 2015's rushing stats.
Final Thoughts
TCU had a massive efficiency advantage over Texas and as a result they finished their scoring opportunities and dominated the game.
I have enjoyed putting these reviews together and am looking forward to doing the same next season. Hopefully 2017 will provide more opportunities to write happy, post-victory reviews.
