Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2996th
  Defense+0.1357th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%84th
  Defense41.7%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3476th
  Defense+1.3229th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2281st
  Defense+0.0188th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3990th
  Defense+0.2827th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%81st
  Defense46.7%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.3%88th
  Defense31.8%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0040th
  Defense2.7288th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%16th
  Defense22.1%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense17.8%71st

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, 2021

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
   TULN
2. W
   WCU
3. W
   NEB
4. W
   WVU
5. W
   KSU
6. W
   TEX
7. W
   TCU
8. W
   KU
9. W
   TTU
10. L
    BAY
11. W
    ISU
12. L
    OKST
13. W
    ORE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2021

1. Caleb WilliamsQB252 plays · +0.398 pts/play · 40th of 219 QBs
   1.88WAR1.28 to 2.50
2. Spencer RattlerQB160 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 98th of 219 QBs
   0.88WAR0.55 to 1.22
3. Kennedy BrooksRB172 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 46th of 387 RBs
   0.58WAR0.39 to 0.77
4. Eric GrayRB76 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 176th of 387 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
5. Michael TurkP30 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 13th of 101 punters
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.27
6. Mike WoodsWR44 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Marvin MimsWR31 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 163rd of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
8. Mario WilliamsWR37 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8958956th of 130Roster talent: 895, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2712719th of 130Recruiting: 271, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%68th of 128Returning production: 72%, 68th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.8+16.813th of 130SP+ rating: +16.8, 13th 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, 2021

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 TEXQ3 6:22 4th & 3 at TEX 12, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. vs TULNQ3 1:01 4th & 4 at TULN 38, up 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. at BAYQ1 1:26 4th & 4 at BAY 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs NEBQ2 4:40 4th & 6 at NEB 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at BAYQ2 1:16 4th & 2 at BAY 23, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs NEBQ2 10:12 4th & 6 at NEB 37, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at KUQ2 1:00 4th & 6 at KU 33, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs NEBQ4 0:57 4th & 5 at NEB 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

41st 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

   TULN
2. W

   WCU
3. W

   NEB
4. W

   WVU
5. W

   KSU
6. W

   TEX
7. W

   TCU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   TTU
10. L

    BAY
11. W

    ISU
12. L

    OKST
13. W

    ORE

What moved it, 2021

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+0.60
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.15

Game by game

• TULNW 40-35 vs TULN97% → 86%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −3
• WCUW 76-0 vs WCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• NEBW 23-16 vs NEB93% → 94%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +1
• WVUW 16-13 vs WVU87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• KSUW 37-31 at KSU81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• TEXW 55-48 at TEX64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• TCUW 52-31 vs TCU81% → 4%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• KUW 35-23 at KU99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +7
• TTUW 52-21 vs TTU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• BAYL 14-27 at BAY64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −51
• ISUW 28-21 vs ISU58% → 91%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −3
• OKSTL 33-37 at OKST42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• OREW 47-32 vs ORE68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, 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.