Oklahoma State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0632nd
  Defense+0.1239th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%26th
  Defense39.5%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2342nd
  Defense+1.407th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0121st
  Defense+0.0844th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1427th
  Defense+0.2340th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%17th
  Defense43.7%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%47th
  Defense31.7%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8513th
  Defense2.9272nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%29th
  Defense20.3%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%27th
  Defense16.1%50th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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 State 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
   CMU
2. W
   ASU
3. W
   UAPB
4. W
   BAY
5. W
   TTU
6. L
   TCU
7. W
   TEX
8. L
   KSU
9. L
   KU
10. W
    ISU
11. L
    OU
12. L
    WVU
13. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma State.

Players, 2022

1. Spencer SandersQB382 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 25th of 234 QBs
   1.95WAR1.27 to 2.72
2. Dominic RichardsonRB155 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 92nd of 384 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.41
3. Ollie Gordon IIRB65 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 188th of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. Bryson GreenWR50 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 185th of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.20
5. Tom HuttonP32 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 28th of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.17
6. Brennan PresleyWR74 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 212th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.03 to 0.21
7. Tanner BrownPK21 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 22nd of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. Braydon JohnsonWR45 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 294th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14

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 State'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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67167139th of 129Roster talent: 671, 39th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20220234th of 129Recruiting: 202, 34th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%3rd of 128Returning production: 90%, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.3+11.331st of 129SP+ rating: +11.3, 31st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.17 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 BAYQ3 3:38 4th & 1 at BAY 1, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. vs ISUQ4 14:03 4th & 3 at ISU 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. vs TTUQ4 12:00 4th & 5 at TTU 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs ISUQ4 6:46 4th & 6 at ISU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs WVUQ3 10:26 4th & 2 at OKST 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at BAYQ2 13:45 4th & 4 at BAY 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at BAYQ4 12:33 4th & 7 at BAY 41, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs TEXQ3 7:04 4th & 5 at TEX 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

89th of 131 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   CMU
2. W

   ASU
3. W

   UAPB
4. W

   BAY
5. W

   TTU
6. L

   TCU
7. W

   TEX
8. L

   KSU
9. L

   KU
10. W

    ISU
11. L

    OU
12. L

    WVU
13. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2022

Every game starts at Oklahoma State'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−0.71
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.29
• Other+0.01

Game by game

• CMUW 58-44 vs CMU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• ASUW 34-17 vs ASU85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• UAPBW 63-7 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BAYW 36-25 at BAY50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• TTUW 41-31 vs TTU79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +1
• TCUL 40-43 at TCU36% → 14%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +20
• TEXW 41-34 vs TEX32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• KSUL 0-48 at KSU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −46
• KUL 16-37 at KU48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• ISUW 20-14 vs ISU50% → 96%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• OUL 13-28 at OU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• WVUL 19-24 vs WVU72% → 4%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• WISL 17-24 vs WIS38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Oklahoma State's side.

Closest call

OKST 21-20 BOIS (2021) - Oklahoma State dropped to a 2.2% win probability before pulling it out.