Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2892nd
  Defense+0.0481st
• 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.
  Offense49.9%95th
  Defense38.5%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3071st
  Defense+1.426th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0946th
  Defense−0.0184th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5095th
  Defense+0.1284th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.0%96th
  Defense42.8%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.7%92nd
  Defense31.0%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0742nd
  Defense2.6492nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%30th
  Defense26.8%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%80th
  Defense19.4%88th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ARST
2. W
   SMU
3. W
   TLSA
4. W
   CIN
5. W
   ISU
6. W
   TEX
7. W
   UCF
8. L
   KU
9. L
   OKST
10. W
    WVU
11. W
    BYU
12. W
    TCU
13. L
    ARIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2023

1. Dillon GabrielQB325 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 10th of 250 QBs
   2.29WAR1.65 to 3.08
2. Nic AndersonWR45 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 55th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
3. Gavin SawchukRB94 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 118th of 383 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
4. Tawee WalkerRB89 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 133rd of 383 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
5. Jackson ArnoldQB65 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 202nd of 250 QBs
   0.15WAR0.01 to 0.30
6. Jalil FarooqWR64 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 134th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.24
7. Marcus MajorRB58 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 227th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Luke ElzingaP23 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 56th of 103 punters
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8858859th of 130Roster talent: 885, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2712718th of 130Recruiting: 271, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%63rd of 128Returning production: 53%, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.0+15.017th of 130SP+ rating: +15.0, 17th 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, 2023

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.14 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 KUQ4 8:11 4th & 4 at OU 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs UCFQ3 3:41 4th & 1 at OU 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at OKSTQ4 12:42 4th & 5 at OKST 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at TEXQ2 0:01 4th & 2 at TEX 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs ARIZQ4 9:55 4th & 4 at OU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs ARIZQ3 6:59 4th & 4 at ARIZ 4, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UCFQ3 9:46 4th & 3 at OU 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at KUQ4 2:05 4th & 12 at KU 40, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

71st of 133 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

   ARST
2. W

   SMU
3. W

   TLSA
4. W

   CIN
5. W

   ISU
6. W

   TEX
7. W

   UCF
8. L

   KU
9. L

   OKST
10. W

    WVU
11. W

    BYU
12. W

    TCU
13. L

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2023

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+0.55
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.05

Game by game

• ARSTW 73-0 vs ARST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• SMUW 28-11 vs SMU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16
• TLSAW 66-17 at TLSA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• CINW 20-6 at CIN87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• ISUW 50-20 vs ISU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +11
• TEXW 34-30 at TEX37% → 81%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• UCFW 31-29 vs UCF88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• KUL 33-38 at KU71% → 15%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position +3
• OKSTL 24-27 at OKST73% → 5%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• WVUW 59-20 vs WVU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19
• BYUW 31-24 at BYU96% → 96%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• TCUW 69-45 vs TCU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• ARIZL 24-38 vs ARIZ46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3

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.