Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.3499th
  Defense+0.1727th
• 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.
  Offense51.6%96th
  Defense42.5%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3190th
  Defense+1.2913th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1364th
  Defense+0.1716th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6699th
  Defense+0.1843rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.0%94th
  Defense46.2%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.
  Offense44.2%98th
  Defense35.8%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1474th
  Defense3.239th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%60th
  Defense16.1%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%94th
  Defense14.9%27th

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, 2016

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. L
   HOU
2. W
   ULM
3. L
   OSU
4. W
   TCU
5. W
   TEX
6. W
   KSU
7. W
   TTU
8. W
   KU
9. W
   ISU
10. W
    BAY
11. W
    WVU
12. W
    OKST
13. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2016

1. Baker MayfieldQB328 plays · +0.342 pts/play · 17th of 218 QBs
   2.10WAR1.54 to 2.64
2. Samaje PerineRB150 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 35th of 347 RBs
   0.57WAR0.40 to 0.74
3. Joe MixonRB169 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 42nd of 347 RBs
   0.55WAR0.38 to 0.71
4. Dede WestbrookWR88 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 13th of 417 WRs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.51
5. Austin SeibertPK39 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 19th of 116 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Geno LewisWR27 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Mark AndrewsTE36 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 34th of 195 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.04 to 0.09
8. Dimitri FlowersFB12 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 278th of 347 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 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'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77777718th of 128Roster talent: 777, 18th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24624616th of 128Recruiting: 246, 16th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%41st of 128Returning production: 77%, 41st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.1+26.14th of 128SP+ rating: +26.1, 4th 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, 2016

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 0.03 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 TCUQ4 1:55 4th & 4 at TCU 18, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs AUBQ3 7:27 4th & 2 at AUB 25, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at WVUQ2 14:51 4th & 1 at OU 39, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at HOUQ2 2:32 4th & 3 at OU 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs BAYQ3 2:01 4th & 1 at OU 26, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ISUQ4 7:05 4th & 4 at ISU 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at TCUQ3 0:22 4th & 1 at OU 44, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs TEXQ1 3:29 4th & 2 at TEX 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

35th 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. L

   HOU
2. W

   ULM
3. L

   OSU
4. W

   TCU
5. W

   TEX
6. W

   KSU
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   ISU
10. W

    BAY
11. W

    WVU
12. W

    OKST
13. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2016

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+1.58
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.90

Game by game

• HOUL 23-33 at HOU77% → 3%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −1
• ULMW 59-17 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OSUL 24-45 vs OSU46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• TCUW 52-46 at TCU65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• TEXW 45-40 vs TEX65% → 91%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +2
• KSUW 38-17 vs KSU84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• TTUW 66-59 at TTU82% → 95%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• KUW 56-3 vs KU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ISUW 34-24 at ISU91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• BAYW 45-24 vs BAY87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• WVUW 56-28 at WVU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position −1
• OKSTW 38-20 vs OKST85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• AUBW 35-19 vs AUB67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −4

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.