Oregon State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.3189th
  Defense+0.0659th
• 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.
  Offense50.6%93rd
  Defense40.3%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3070th
  Defense+1.1381st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1353rd
  Defense+0.0452nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4588th
  Defense+0.0966th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.7%93rd
  Defense45.2%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.
  Offense38.2%84th
  Defense29.0%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5292nd
  Defense3.0137th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.5%99th
  Defense15.7%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.2%85th
  Defense17.1%67th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Oregon State 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. L
   HOU
2. L
   TTU
3. W
   MONT
4. W
   UTEP
5. W
   CSU
6. W
   SDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon State.

Players, 2026

1. Braden AtkinsonQB162 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 27th of 192 QBs
   0.43WAR0.17 to 0.69
2. Jesse LegreeWR34 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 2nd of 364 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
3. AJ NewberryRB57 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 65th of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
4. Eric OlsenTE23 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 29th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
5. Cornell Hatcher Jr.RB20 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 211th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
6. DeCorion TempleTE14 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 51st of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Caleb OjedaPK5 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 76th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02
8. Jake ReichleRB4 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Oregon State'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63663676th of 138Roster talent: 636, 76th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118172nd of 138Recruiting: 181, 72nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%45th of 136Returning production: 58%, 45th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.1+7.151st of 138SP+ rating so far: +7.1, 51st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Oregon State'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 0.02 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 HOUQ2 0:01 4th & 18 at HOU 48, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
2. vs TTUQ4 4:00 4th & 9 at TTU 37, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
3. vs TTUQ4 13:23 4th & 4 at TTU 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs TTUQ3 1:08 4th & 4 at ORST 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs MONTQ4 2:24 4th & 3 at MONT 4, up 35Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs TTUQ1 0:12 4th & 9 at TTU 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

29th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Oregon State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   HOU
2. L

   TTU
3. W

   MONT
4. W

   UTEP
5. W

   CSU
6. W

   SDSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Oregon State'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+0.72
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.01

Game by game

• HOUL 20-33 at HOU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position −1
• TTUL 24-35 vs TTU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• MONTW 52-17 vs MONT89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• UTEPW 33-7 at UTEP80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• CSUW 56-26 at CSU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• SDSUW 66-14 vs SDSU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23

Points of win probability, from Oregon State's side.

Closest call

ORST 41-34 COLO (2018) - Oregon State dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.