Oklahoma State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.074th
  Defense+0.244th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%5th
  Defense44.8%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1612th
  Defense+1.377th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.084th
  Defense+0.1324th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.037th
  Defense+0.402nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.5%10th
  Defense50.5%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.1%4th
  Defense31.3%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.597th
  Defense2.9837th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%35th
  Defense20.4%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%7th
  Defense14.9%36th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UTM
2. L
   ORE
3. L
   TLSA
4. L
   BAY
5. L
   ARIZ
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   CIN
8. L
   TTU
9. L
   KU
10. L
    KSU
11. L
    UCF
12. L
    ISU

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

Players, 2025

1. Zane FloresQB229 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 136th of 231 QBs
   0.43WAR0.03 to 0.82
2. Rodney Fields Jr.RB118 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 87th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.31
3. Gavin FreemanWR51 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 165th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
4. Logan WardPK15 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 71st of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.11
5. Terrill DavisWR37 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 268th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Shamar RigbyWR28 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 274th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.13
7. Wes PahlP32 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 33rd of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10
8. Christian FitzpatrickWR9 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 401st of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70370349th of 134Roster talent: 703, 49th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020043rd of 134Recruiting: 200, 43rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%113th of 132Returning production: 13%, 113th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.1−15.1119th of 134SP+ rating: −15.1, 119th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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 KSUQ4 0:38 4th & 17 at KSU 26, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.8 pts
2. at KUQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at KU 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs ISUQ3 12:06 4th & 2 at OKST 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs BAYQ4 12:05 4th & 6 at OKST 49, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs CINQ4 7:01 4th & 6 at CIN 23, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs UTMQ2 8:44 4th & 2 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs HOUQ2 14:18 4th & 6 at HOU 36, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs KSUQ2 1:51 4th & 9 at KSU 37, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

110th of 136 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

   UTM
2. L

   ORE
3. L

   TLSA
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   ARIZ
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   CIN
8. L

   TTU
9. L

   KU
10. L

    KSU
11. L

    UCF
12. L

    ISU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.37
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts−0.44
• Other−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.61

Game by game

• UTMW 27-7 vs UTM96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts −4
• OREL 3-69 at ORE3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• TLSAL 12-19 vs TLSA74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Timeouts −29, Scoreboard −25
• BAYL 27-45 vs BAY6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9, Timeouts −3
• ARIZL 13-41 at ARIZ6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• HOUL 17-39 vs HOU13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −4
• CINL 17-49 vs CIN6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8, Timeouts −1
• TTUL 0-42 at TTU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• KUL 21-38 at KU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• KSUL 6-14 vs KSU8% → 3%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• UCFL 14-17 at UCF19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• ISUL 13-20 vs ISU14% → 8%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −25, Clock −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.