Oklahoma State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1456th
  Defense+0.283rd
• 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.
  Offense43.1%53rd
  Defense45.6%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2645th
  Defense+1.512nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0117th
  Defense+0.281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2676th
  Defense+0.2915th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%59th
  Defense50.4%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%40th
  Defense35.7%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7920th
  Defense3.436th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%41st
  Defense13.5%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%71st
  Defense14.6%32nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   SDST
2. W
   ARK
3. W
   TLSA
4. L
   UTAH
5. L
   KSU
6. L
   WVU
7. L
   BYU
8. L
   BAY
9. L
   ASU
10. L
    TCU
11. L
    TTU
12. L
    COLO

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

Players, 2024

1. Alan BowmanQB270 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 72nd of 232 QBs
   1.29WAR0.83 to 1.71
2. Ollie Gordon IIRB175 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 49th of 373 RBs
   0.40WAR0.26 to 0.53
3. Maealiuaki SmithQB59 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 175th of 232 QBs
   0.22WAR0.09 to 0.35
4. De'Zhaun StriblingWR49 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 107th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.24
5. Hudson KaakP25 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 46th of 106 punters
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
6. Rashod OwensWR30 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 217th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.12
7. Talyn ShettronWR14 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 306th of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.06
8. Wes PahlP21 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 85th of 106 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68868853rd of 131Roster talent: 688, 53rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919941st of 131Recruiting: 199, 41st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%13th of 130Returning production: 82%, 13th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.6−2.679th of 131SP+ rating: −2.6, 79th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.12 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 UTAHQ3 5:43 4th & 2 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs ASUQ3 12:23 4th & 1 at OKST 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs WVUQ3 7:33 4th & 17 at WVU 43, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. at BAYQ3 9:35 4th & 2 at OKST 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs TTUQ4 2:51 4th & 2 at TTU 17, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs TTUQ2 9:55 4th & 2 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs SDSTQ2 0:58 4th & 5 at SDST 43, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at KSUQ2 7:30 4th & 4 at KSU 14, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

132nd of 134 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

   SDST
2. W

   ARK
3. W

   TLSA
4. L

   UTAH
5. L

   KSU
6. L

   WVU
7. L

   BYU
8. L

   BAY
9. L

   ASU
10. L

    TCU
11. L

    TTU
12. L

    COLO

What moved it, 2024

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−2.60
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.13
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• SDSTW 44-20 vs SDST82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• ARKW 39-31 vs ARK73% → 92%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −13
• TLSAW 45-10 at TLSA87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• UTAHL 19-22 vs UTAH53% → 5%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• KSUL 20-42 at KSU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +1
• WVUL 14-38 vs WVU55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• BYUL 35-38 at BYU30% → 11%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −2
• BAYL 28-38 at BAY34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• ASUL 21-42 vs ASU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• TCUL 13-38 at TCU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• TTUL 48-56 vs TTU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• COLOL 0-52 at COLO16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +1

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.