Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2185th
  Defense+0.0279th
• 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.
  Offense46.8%81st
  Defense39.5%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2675th
  Defense+1.1182nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1165th
  Defense+0.0743rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3486th
  Defense−0.0291st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%80th
  Defense44.4%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.1%64th
  Defense30.2%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0171st
  Defense2.9239th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%31st
  Defense19.5%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%77th
  Defense2.9%89th

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, 2015

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2015

1. Baker MayfieldQB359 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 63rd of 205 QBs
   1.44WAR0.78 to 2.06
2. Samaje PerineRB162 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 35th of 333 RBs
   0.42WAR0.26 to 0.53
3. Sterling ShepardWR76 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 34th of 411 WRs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.40
4. Joe MixonRB81 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 127th of 333 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
5. Dede WestbrookWR44 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 146th of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Austin SeibertPK14 plays · +0.398 pts/play · 70th of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Durron NealWR42 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 293rd of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12
8. Trevor KnightQB13 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 194th of 205 QBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77677616th of 128Roster talent: 776, 16th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24924914th of 128Recruiting: 249, 14th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%24th of 127Returning production: 83%, 24th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.7+22.77th of 128SP+ rating: +22.7, 7th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.04 of the 0.09 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 TENNQ2 9:18 4th & 1 at OU 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at TENNQ2 4:56 4th & 3 at TENN 18, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs TLSAQ3 12:57 4th & 1 at TLSA 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at TEXQ2 6:05 4th & 4 at TEX 4, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs TCUQ3 12:49 4th & 7 at OU 41, up 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at OKSTQ1 3:20 4th & 1 at OU 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs ISUQ2 9:37 4th & 1 at OU 27, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs WVUQ1 2:18 4th & 8 at WVU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

38th 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

   AKR
2. W

   TENN
3. W

   TLSA
4. W

   WVU
5. L

   TEX
6. W

   KSU
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   ISU
10. W

    BAY
11. W

    TCU
12. W

    OKST
13. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2015

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+1.46
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.06

Game by game

• AKRW 41-3 vs AKR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TENNW 31-24 at TENN60% → 80%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +18
• TLSAW 52-38 vs TLSA98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +6
• WVUW 44-24 vs WVU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• TEXL 17-24 at TEX84% → 3%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• KSUW 55-0 at KSU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• TTUW 63-27 vs TTU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• KUW 62-7 at KU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ISUW 52-16 vs ISU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• BAYW 44-34 at BAY39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• TCUW 30-29 vs TCU89% → 83%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position −1
• OKSTW 58-23 at OKST65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• CLEML 17-37 at CLEM53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts +2

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.