Texas State · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Texas State ranks No. 103 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -6.45 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 82; this update moves it -21 places and -4.19 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -5.380. Prior-season margin: +5.990.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0133; EPA/play net: +0.0000; success-rate net: +0.0000; explosiveness net: +0.0000. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 0 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Texas State lost to UTSA by 5 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -1.96; the result was -3.04 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is North Texas on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 481 versus 398; Net passing yards: 192 versus 258; Rushing yards: 289 versus 140; First downs: 27 versus 22

Completions–attempts: 17-30 versus 29-43; Rush attempts: 50 versus 31; Yards per pass: 6.4 versus 6.0; Yards per rush: 5.8 versus 4.5

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 31 points and recorded 398 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 1; Third downs: 9-17 versus 3-15; Fourth downs: 0-1 versus 5-6

Turnovers: 3 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 2 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 9-90 versus 11-115; Possession time: 31:40 versus 28:20

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 0–2. The expected final record is 4.0–7.0 over 11 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 102 UTEP (-6.15); No. 104 Wyoming (-6.61).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.