Oregon State

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−0.019th
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%50th
  Defense38.3%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.031st
  Defense+1.442nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0411th
  Defense+0.0652nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0410th
  Defense+0.2430th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%57th
  Defense42.7%85th
• 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%30th
  Defense29.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8235th
  Defense2.6088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%83rd
  Defense22.4%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%34th
  Defense17.2%73rd

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 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
   CAL
2. L
   FRES
3. L
   TTU
4. L
   ORE
5. L
   HOU
6. L
   APP
7. L
   WAKE
8. W
   LAF
9. W
   WSU
10. L
    SHSU
11. L
    TLSA
12. L
    WSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Maalik MurphyQB200 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 110th of 231 QBs
   0.71WAR0.31 to 1.09
2. Anthony HankersonRB215 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 41st of 365 RBs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.42
3. Gabarri JohnsonQB98 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 170th of 231 QBs
   0.19WAR0.01 to 0.35
4. Trent WalkerWR69 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.03 to 0.22
5. Taz ReddicksWR31 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
6. Bryce CaufieldTE24 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 103rd of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
7. Gabe MilbournTE14 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 128th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. David Wells Jr.WR51 plays · +0.023 pts/play · 378th of 451 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.06 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 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66866860th of 134Roster talent: 668, 60th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218265th of 134Recruiting: 182, 65th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%36th of 132Returning production: 52%, 36th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.9−15.9124th of 134SP+ rating: −15.9, 124th 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.19 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 FRESQ4 11:18 4th & 14 at ORST 37, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−5.0 pts
2. vs SHSUQ4 4:25 4th & 3 at SHSU 10, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
3. vs WSUQ3 13:03 4th & 1 at ORST 25, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs WSUQ4 3:59 4th & 3 at ORST 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at APPQ2 11:39 4th & 3 at APP 11, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs CALQ4 5:18 4th & 6 at ORST 16, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs HOUQ3 10:59 4th & 2 at ORST 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at WSUQ2 2:35 4th & 1 at ORST 17, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

133rd of 136 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

   CAL
2. L

   FRES
3. L

   TTU
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   HOU
6. L

   APP
7. L

   WAKE
8. W

   LAF
9. W

   WSU
10. L

    SHSU
11. L

    TLSA
12. L

    WSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.77
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.15
• Other+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15

Game by game

• CALL 15-34 vs CAL53% → 9%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• FRESL 27-36 vs FRES59% → 55%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −3: Timeouts −6, Possession & field position −3
• TTUL 14-45 at TTU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• OREL 7-41 at ORE2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• HOUL 24-27 vs HOU19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• APPL 23-27 at APP49% → 16%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +20
• WAKEL 14-39 vs WAKE47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −1
• LAFW 45-13 vs LAF93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• WSUW 10-7 vs WSU44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• SHSUL 17-21 vs SHSU92% → 4%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• TLSAL 14-31 at TLSA51% → 1%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• WSUL 8-32 at WSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −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.