Texas Tech’s third-down conversion rate with Cameron Dickey and without Cameron Dickey
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Texas Tech was 4.2 percentage points over with Cameron Dickey and 6.3 percentage points over without Cameron Dickey over its last 25 games, 19 games against 4. The plain averages are 47.5% and 48.8%, a difference of 1.2%. All 3 neutral-site games were with Cameron Dickey. All 4 night games were with Cameron Dickey. All 6 ranked opponents were with Cameron Dickey.
Cameron Dickey, running back: 1,474 rushing yards, 291 carries and 32 receptions in 21 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A −2.1% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Cameron Dickey vs without Cameron Dickey is a bit unusual: shuffle which games were with Cameron Dickey and it comes up 16 times in 100.
A −1.2% difference in third-down conversion rate with Cameron Dickey vs without Cameron Dickey is a bit unusual: shuffle which games were with Cameron Dickey and it comes up 6 times in 100.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2024 | @ Oklahoma State | W | 63.6% | 44.6% | |
| Nov 30, 2024 | vs West Virginia | W | 75.0% | 44.0% | |
| Dec 27, 2024 | vs Arkansas (neutral) | L | 41.7% | 41.1% | |
| Aug 30, 2025 | vsAArkansas-Pine Bluff | W | 62.5% | — | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | vs Kent State | W | 46.2% | 56.9% | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | vs Oregon State | W | 60.0% | 39.3% | |
| Sep 20, 2025 | @ Utah | W | 52.9% | 41.8% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | @ Houston | W | 50.0% | 45.5% | |
| Oct 11, 2025 | vs Kansas | W | 42.9% | 49.3% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | @ Arizona State | L | 37.5% | 44.3% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | vsOklahoma State | W | 56.3% | 48.0% | |
| Nov 1, 2025 | @ Kansas State | W | 41.2% | 44.7% | |
| Nov 8, 2025 | vs BYU | W | 38.9% | 41.9% | |
| Nov 15, 2025 | vs UCF | W | 66.7% | 43.5% | |
| Nov 29, 2025 | @West Virginia | W | 66.7% | 42.2% | |
| Dec 6, 2025 | vsBYU (neutral) | W | 42.1% | 41.1% | |
| Jan 1, 2026 | vs Oregon (neutral) | L | 37.5% | 43.0% | |
| Sep 5, 2026 | vsAAbilene Christian | W | 41.7% | — | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | @Oregon State | W | 47.1% | 38.3% | |
| Sep 18, 2026 | vsHouston | W | 60.0% | 36.7% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | vs Sam Houston | W | 44.4% | 38.7% | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | @ Colorado | W | 25.0% | 37.1% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | vsArizona State | W | 36.4% | 36.7% | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | @ Cincinnati | L | 20.0% | 44.5% | |
| Oct 31, 2026 | vs Arizona | W | 37.5% | 40.7% |
Method
- Expected is an offense and a defense a team, fit over every game of its season between two teams in the table with the game being read left out, plus 0.6% in 2024, plus 0.7% in 2025, plus 1.4% in 2026 for the home team (the edge the fit finds once strength is in), nothing at a neutral site.
- Each expected number is then fit to the season’s games: a game bears out about 50% in 2024, 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The shuffle keeps the season’s shape: the games are cut in two where one date leaves the least variance, each game is read against its stretch, and the sides are shuffled only inside each stretch.
- Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Abilene Christian have no other game in the table, so those games have no expected number and sit out the second figure.
- Who played is read from the schools’ box scores’ participation lists for 22 of these 25 games; in the other 3 a player is counted as in them when the box score has a stat for him.