Oregon State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1768th
  Defense+0.2511th
• 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.
  Offense46.6%79th
  Defense48.8%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.138th
  Defense+1.1973rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2594th
  Defense+0.238th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0934th
  Defense+0.2923rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.3%93rd
  Defense52.7%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%15th
  Defense37.3%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3393rd
  Defense3.0632nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%72nd
  Defense19.7%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%79th
  Defense12.6%10th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   WSU
2. L
   WASH
3. W
   CAL
4. W
   ORE
5. L
   UTAH
6. L
   STAN
7. L
   ASU

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

Players, 2020

1. Jermar JeffersonRB143 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 19th of 338 RBs
   0.54WAR0.41 to 0.67
2. Chance NolanQB114 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 115th of 212 QBs
   0.25WAR0.08 to 0.45
3. Tristan GebbiaQB145 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 144th of 212 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.06 to 0.40
4. B.J. BaylorRB27 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 248th of 338 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.12
5. Trevon BradfordWR35 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 240th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.10
6. Zeriah BeasonWR30 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 271st of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
7. Tyjon LindseyWR24 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 296th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Kolby TaylorWR31 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 298th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61661651st of 127Roster talent: 616, 51st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717761st of 127Recruiting: 177, 61st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%113th of 127Returning production: 31%, 113th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.774th of 127SP+ rating: −0.7, 74th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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. vs OREQ4 2:18 4th & 7 at ORE 15, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.9 pts
2. vs OREQ4 4:00 4th & 7 at ORE 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. vs OREQ3 13:36 4th & 1 at ORST 28, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs CALQ3 6:20 4th & 3 at CAL 17, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs STANQ2 4:39 4th & 4 at ORST 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UTAHQ1 2:39 4th & 2 at UTAH 31, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs ASUQ4 15:00 4th & 7 at ORST 37, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs STANQ2 0:32 4th & 3 at STAN 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

64th of 127 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

   WSU
2. L

   WASH
3. W

   CAL
4. W

   ORE
5. L

   UTAH
6. L

   STAN
7. L

   ASU

What moved it, 2020

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−1.16
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.13

Game by game

• WSUL 28-38 vs WSU56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WASHL 21-27 at WASH17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• CALW 31-27 vs CAL41% → 94%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• OREW 41-38 vs ORE16% → 81%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• UTAHL 24-30 at UTAH18% → 11%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• STANL 24-27 vs STAN37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• ASUL 33-46 vs ASU27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1

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.