Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.4199th
  Defense+0.1241st
• 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.
  Offense53.4%99th
  Defense41.3%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3695th
  Defense+1.3312th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense+0.1226th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6399th
  Defense+0.1449th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.1%99th
  Defense46.2%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense45.7%99th
  Defense31.9%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2188th
  Defense2.7069th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%40th
  Defense18.9%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%97th
  Defense14.2%19th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   UTEP
2. W
   OSU
3. W
   TULN
4. W
   BAY
5. L
   ISU
6. W
   TEX
7. W
   KSU
8. W
   TTU
9. W
   OKST
10. W
    TCU
11. W
    KU
12. W
    WVU
13. W
    TCU
14. L
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2017

1. Baker MayfieldQB342 plays · +0.444 pts/play · 2nd of 226 QBs
   2.84WAR2.21 to 3.46
2. Rodney AndersonRB135 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 32nd of 352 RBs
   0.49WAR0.38 to 0.60
3. Trey SermonRB83 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 164th of 352 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
4. Marquise BrownWR47 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
5. CeeDee LambWR47 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 176th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Austin SeibertPK38 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 73rd of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.16
7. Jeff BadetWR19 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 346th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Mark AndrewsTE58 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 23rd of 199 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.06 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80280216th of 130Roster talent: 802, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25225213th of 130Recruiting: 252, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%73rd of 128Returning production: 59%, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.5+25.57th of 128SP+ rating: +25.5, 7th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.15 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 KSUQ4 12:51 4th & 16 at OU 45, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. at OKSTQ2 1:18 4th & 2 at OKST 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs UGAQ3 12:36 4th & 1 at OU 23, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at KSUQ2 0:38 4th & 2 at KSU 2, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs TCUQ3 12:34 4th & 1 at OU 28, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TCUQ3 5:02 4th & 1 at midfield, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 5:37 4th & 3 at OU 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs ISUQ4 13:43 4th & 4 at ISU 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

27th of 130 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

   UTEP
2. W

   OSU
3. W

   TULN
4. W

   BAY
5. L

   ISU
6. W

   TEX
7. W

   KSU
8. W

   TTU
9. W

   OKST
10. W

    TCU
11. W

    KU
12. W

    WVU
13. W

    TCU
14. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2017

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+1.93
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.00

Game by game

• UTEPW 56-7 vs UTEP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• OSUW 31-16 at OSU31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +61, Clock +2
• TULNW 56-14 vs TULN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BAYW 49-41 at BAY97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• ISUL 31-38 vs ISU97% → 5%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• TEXW 29-24 at TEX75% → 90%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +33, Clock +3
• KSUW 42-35 at KSU86% → 90%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• TTUW 49-27 vs TTU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• OKSTW 62-52 at OKST48% → 96%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TCUW 38-20 vs TCU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36
• KUW 41-3 at KU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WVUW 59-31 vs WVU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• TCUW 41-17 vs TCU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +34, Clock −1
• UGAL 48-54 vs UGA40% → 9%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −16

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.