Oklahoma

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0526th
  Defense−0.0492nd
• 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.
  Offense39.7%25th
  Defense32.1%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2559th
  Defense+1.3218th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0120th
  Defense−0.1096th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1236th
  Defense+0.0485th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%28th
  Defense35.8%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%32nd
  Defense25.6%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7119th
  Defense2.0399th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.2%13th
  Defense29.1%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%30th
  Defense22.7%99th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ILST
2. W
   MICH
3. W
   TEM
4. W
   AUB
5. W
   KENT
6. L
   TEX
7. W
   SC
8. L
   MISS
9. W
   TENN
10. W
    ALA
11. W
    MIZ
12. W
    LSU
13. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma.

Players, 2025

1. John MateerQB450 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 10th of 231 QBs
   2.10WAR1.30 to 2.90
2. Tate SandellPK21 plays · +0.426 pts/play · 2nd of 112 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
3. Isaiah Sategna IIIWR86 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 116th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR−0.04 to 0.33
4. Xavier RobinsonRB77 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 180th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Tory BlaylockRB99 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 187th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Jaren KanakTE41 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 29th of 213 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
7. Deion BurksWR74 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 281st of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.07 to 0.19
8. Jovantae BarnesRB12 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 306th of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  88388314th of 134Roster talent: 883, 14th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2702709th of 134Recruiting: 270, 9th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%34th of 132Returning production: 53%, 34th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.3+18.314th of 134SP+ rating: +18.3, 14th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.05 of the 0.12 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 SCQ3 6:01 4th & 4 at SC 37, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs AUBQ4 14:56 4th & 2 at AUB 10, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at SCQ3 9:42 4th & 4 at SC 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs MIZQ3 5:59 4th & 2 at OU 48, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at TEXQ4 5:36 4th & 22 at TEX 37, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs LSUQ2 0:41 4th & 3 at LSU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs MIZQ4 14:15 4th & 2 at OU 43, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MICHQ4 1:44 4th & 3 at MICH 3, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

34th of 136 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

   ILST
2. W

   MICH
3. W

   TEM
4. W

   AUB
5. W

   KENT
6. L

   TEX
7. W

   SC
8. L

   MISS
9. W

   TENN
10. W

    ALA
11. W

    MIZ
12. W

    LSU
13. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2025

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+1.29
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.07
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.32

Game by game

• ILSTW 35-3 vs ILST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MICHW 24-13 vs MICH62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• TEMW 42-3 at TEM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• AUBW 24-17 vs AUB72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 44-0 vs KENT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TEXL 6-23 at TEX43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• SCW 26-7 at SC63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• MISSL 26-34 vs MISS70% → 5%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• TENNW 33-27 at TENN46% → 96%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• ALAW 23-21 at ALA32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• MIZW 17-6 vs MIZ67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• LSUW 17-13 vs LSU76% → 92%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +3
• ALAL 24-34 vs ALA54% → 2%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54, 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.