Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2081st
  Defense+0.1625th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense43.6%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2237th
  Defense+1.2932nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2085th
  Defense+0.1128th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2662nd
  Defense+0.2629th
• 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%91st
  Defense48.7%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%48th
  Defense32.9%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3991st
  Defense3.1042nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%66th
  Defense17.6%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%72nd
  Defense17.8%74th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2022

1. Dillon GabrielQB324 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 60th of 234 QBs
   1.26WAR0.53 to 2.05
2. Eric GrayRB176 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 29th of 384 RBs
   0.53WAR0.38 to 0.68
3. Michael TurkP45 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 1st of 102 punters
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.35
4. Marvin MimsWR59 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 35th of 455 WRs
   0.24WAR0.09 to 0.40
5. Jovantae BarnesRB57 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 206th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Jalil FarooqWR46 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 129th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
7. Brayden WillisTE35 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 22nd of 214 TEs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.19
8. Drake StoopsWR46 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 185th of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.18

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8708709th of 129Roster talent: 870, 9th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2682688th of 129Recruiting: 268, 8th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%110th of 128Returning production: 28%, 110th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.4+15.419th of 129SP+ rating: +15.4, 19th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 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 TTUQ4 4:04 4th & 2 at TTU 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at WVUQ4 6:24 4th & 3 at WVU 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs BAYQ4 14:50 4th & 4 at BAY 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at TTUQ2 7:40 4th & 1 at OU 17, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs KSUQ4 1:58 4th & 4 at KSU 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at ISUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at OU 32, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs OKSTQ4 4:24 4th & 1 at OU 29, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs OKSTQ4 8:36 4th & 2 at OU 48, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

127th of 131 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

   KENT
3. W

   NEB
4. L

   KSU
5. L

   TCU
6. L

   TEX
7. W

   KU
8. W

   ISU
9. L

   BAY
10. L

    WVU
11. W

    OKST
12. L

    TTU
13. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2022

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−1.39
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.28
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.69

Game by game

• UTEPW 45-13 vs UTEP97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• KENTW 33-3 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NEBW 49-14 at NEB76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• KSUL 34-41 vs KSU82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• TCUL 24-55 at TCU60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 0-49 vs TEX27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32
• KUW 52-42 vs KU77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −1
• ISUW 27-13 at ISU56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• BAYL 35-38 vs BAY60% → 12%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts +3
• WVUL 20-23 at WVU74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• OKSTW 28-13 vs OKST65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• TTUL 48-51 at TTU51% → 21%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +25
• FSUL 32-35 at FSU21% → 11%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −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.