Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2479th
  Defense+0.1260th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%84th
  Defense40.2%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2157th
  Defense+1.2818th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2591st
  Defense+0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2355th
  Defense+0.2151st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%88th
  Defense45.0%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%64th
  Defense31.4%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2789th
  Defense2.5979th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%76th
  Defense21.5%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense2.0%53rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   LT
2. W
   TLSA
3. W
   TENN
4. W
   WVU
5. L
   TCU
6. W
   TEX
7. L
   KSU
8. W
   ISU
9. L
   BAY
10. W
    TTU
11. W
    KU
12. L
    OKST
13. L
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2014

1. Trevor KnightQB267 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 83rd of 199 QBs
   1.28WAR0.81 to 1.77
2. Samaje PerineRB206 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 15th of 350 RBs
   0.54WAR0.34 to 0.69
3. Cody ThomasQB61 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 157th of 199 QBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.34
4. Sterling ShepardWR64 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 52nd of 469 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.34
5. Alex RossRB64 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 181st of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16
6. Durron NealWR49 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 271st of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.14
7. Jed BarnettP46 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 78th of 94 punters
   0.03WAR−0.07 to 0.11
8. Keith FordRB7 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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. at TCUQ4 0:06 4th & 6 at OU 33, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−6.9 pts
2. at TCUQ4 7:02 4th & 5 at OU 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs TEXQ2 6:33 4th & 2 at OU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs TENNQ2 8:09 4th & 1 at OU 23, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs KSUQ1 2:12 4th & 1 at OU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs KUQ2 12:47 4th & 1 at OU 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs OKSTQ4 0:45 4th & 9 at OKST 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs TEXQ4 6:38 4th & 2 at OU 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

128th of 128 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

   LT
2. W

   TLSA
3. W

   TENN
4. W

   WVU
5. L

   TCU
6. W

   TEX
7. L

   KSU
8. W

   ISU
9. L

   BAY
10. W

    TTU
11. W

    KU
12. L

    OKST
13. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2014

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−0.89
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.47

Game by game

• LTW 48-16 vs LT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TLSAW 52-7 at TLSA94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• TENNW 34-10 vs TENN90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• WVUW 45-33 at WVU77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• TCUL 33-37 at TCU64% → 13%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• TEXW 31-26 vs TEX84% → 89%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +2
• KSUL 30-31 vs KSU80% → 15%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• ISUW 59-14 at ISU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• BAYL 14-48 vs BAY57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• TTUW 42-30 at TTU82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• KUW 44-7 vs KU94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +11
• OKSTL 35-38 vs OKST91% → 12%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −18
• CLEML 6-40 at CLEM67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −58

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.