Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.4699th
  Defense+0.275th
• 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.
  Offense55.5%99th
  Defense48.1%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3593rd
  Defense+1.2533rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3399th
  Defense+0.1716th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6399th
  Defense+0.404th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.9%99th
  Defense55.2%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense48.9%99th
  Defense32.9%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6799th
  Defense2.9740th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%81st
  Defense16.5%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.6%93rd
  Defense14.2%17th

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, 2018

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
   FAU
2. W
   UCLA
3. W
   ISU
4. W
   ARMY
5. W
   BAY
6. L
   TEX
7. W
   TCU
8. W
   KSU
9. W
   TTU
10. W
    OKST
11. W
    KU
12. W
    WVU
13. W
    TEX
14. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2018

1. Kyler MurrayQB391 plays · +0.390 pts/play · 3rd of 225 QBs
   2.85WAR2.18 to 3.49
2. Trey SermonRB143 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 62nd of 351 RBs
   0.48WAR0.36 to 0.58
3. Kennedy BrooksRB96 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 89th of 351 RBs
   0.40WAR0.33 to 0.47
4. Marquise BrownWR82 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 13th of 434 WRs
   0.30WAR0.15 to 0.46
5. CeeDee LambWR62 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 45th of 434 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
6. Austin SeibertPK37 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 15th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
7. Grant CalcaterraTE28 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.07
8. Rodney AndersonRB3 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 292nd of 351 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 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

What it had and what it did, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84484411th of 130Roster talent: 844, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25925911th of 130Recruiting: 259, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%102nd of 129Returning production: 41%, 102nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.9+24.94th of 130SP+ rating: +24.9, 4th of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 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 TEXQ2 10:06 4th & 1 at OU 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at TTUQ2 0:06 4th & 7 at TTU 40, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs OKSTQ3 10:25 4th & 12 at OKST 40, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs TEXQ2 14:56 4th & 2 at TEX 15, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs TEXQ1 7:37 4th & 3 at TEX 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs UCLAQ2 9:26 4th & 2 at OU 16, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs FAUQ2 7:40 4th & 6 at FAU 36, up 35Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs OKSTQ2 13:37 4th & 4 at OKST 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

35th 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

   FAU
2. W

   UCLA
3. W

   ISU
4. W

   ARMY
5. W

   BAY
6. L

   TEX
7. W

   TCU
8. W

   KSU
9. W

   TTU
10. W

    OKST
11. W

    KU
12. W

    WVU
13. W

    TEX
14. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2018

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+1.53
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.10

Game by game

• FAUW 63-14 vs FAU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• UCLAW 49-21 vs UCLA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ISUW 37-27 at ISU90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• ARMYW 28-21 vs ARMY97% → 91%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts −5
• BAYW 66-33 vs BAY92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• TEXL 45-48 vs TEX65% → 13%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• TCUW 52-27 at TCU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• KSUW 51-14 vs KSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• TTUW 51-46 at TTU86% → 85%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +2
• OKSTW 48-47 vs OKST93% → 87%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position +1
• KUW 55-40 vs KU98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• WVUW 59-56 at WVU59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• TEXW 39-27 vs TEX71% → 98%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −1
• ALAL 34-45 at ALA15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1

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.