Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.075th
  Defense−0.1597th
• 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.
  Offense36.8%8th
  Defense31.9%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.085th
  Defense+1.2253rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.301st
  Defense−0.0782nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2453rd
  Defense−0.0588th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.2%7th
  Defense35.5%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%25th
  Defense24.7%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.312nd
  Defense2.6877th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.1%1st
  Defense18.1%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%16th
  Defense20.5%91st

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Oklahoma 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
   UTEP
2. L
   MICH
3. W
   UNM
4. L
   UGA
5. W
   TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2026

1. John MateerQB130 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 75th of 192 QBs
   0.27WAR0.08 to 0.45
2. Isaiah Sategna IIIWR31 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 101st of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
3. Lloyd AvantRB33 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 146th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Rocky BeersTE18 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 4th of 164 TEs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
5. Tate SandellPK4 plays · +0.373 pts/play · 37th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Trell HarrisWR6 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
7. Xavier RobinsonRB9 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 265th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Tory BlaylockRB10 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 272nd of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 Oklahoma'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85185117th of 138Roster talent: 851, 17th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26626614th of 138Recruiting: 266, 14th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%38th of 136Returning production: 63%, 38th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.2+12.230th of 138SP+ rating so far: +12.2, 30th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Oklahoma's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.07 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. vs TEXQ3 6:09 4th & 3 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs UNMQ2 0:03 4th & 1 at UNM 23, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs UNMQ4 14:49 4th & 3 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs TEXQ1 1:26 4th & 1 at OU 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs TEXQ2 3:43 4th & 6 at TEX 35, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TEXQ3 10:56 4th & 8 at TEX 35, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs UTEPQ2 5:00 4th & 2 at UTEP 15, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs UNMQ2 7:44 4th & 2 at OU 13, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

74th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Oklahoma's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UTEP
2. L

   MICH
3. W

   UNM
4. L

   UGA
5. W

   TEX

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Oklahoma'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−0.03
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01

Game by game

• UTEPW 51-0 vs UTEP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MICHL 10-17 at MICH61% → 6%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −3
• UNMW 14-6 vs UNM92% → 98%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 13-41 at UGA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• TEXW 27-24 vs TEX29% → 96%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3

Points of win probability, from Oklahoma's side.

Closest call

TCU 31-52 OU (2021) - Oklahoma dropped to a 3.9% win probability before pulling it out.