Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2589th
  Defense+0.262nd
• 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.
  Offense46.1%76th
  Defense51.8%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3799th
  Defense+1.1664th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1365th
  Defense+0.262nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3991st
  Defense+0.2717th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%80th
  Defense56.6%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%55th
  Defense39.1%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1271st
  Defense3.483rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%54th
  Defense16.5%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%37th
  Defense12.9%9th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 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
   UCD
2. W
   UVA
3. L
   NEB
4. L
   COLO
5. L
   WSU
6. L
   WASH
7. L
   CAL
8. W
   ASU
9. L
   USC
10. L
    STAN
11. W
    UTAH
12. L
    ORST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2016

1. Justin HerbertQB261 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 66th of 218 QBs
   1.22WAR0.83 to 1.66
2. Dakota PrukopQB132 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 122nd of 218 QBs
   0.56WAR0.36 to 0.75
3. Royce FreemanRB165 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 76th of 347 RBs
   0.42WAR0.23 to 0.59
4. Tony Brooks-JamesRB90 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 106th of 347 RBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.45
5. Darren Carrington IIWR54 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 55th of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.30
6. Charles NelsonWR63 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 192nd of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
7. Kani BenoitRB28 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 245th of 347 RBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Aidan SchneiderPK9 plays · +0.444 pts/play · 81st of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10

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'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73873821st of 128Roster talent: 738, 21st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23223221st of 128Recruiting: 232, 21st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%76th of 128Returning production: 61%, 76th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.1+6.155th of 128SP+ rating: +6.1, 55th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 COLOQ4 8:43 4th & 8 at COLO 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at NEBQ4 7:32 4th & 3 at ORE 19, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs UVAQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at UVA 3, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs COLOQ3 12:59 4th & 4 at COLO 49, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs ASUQ3 4:56 4th & 3 at ORE 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 5:29 4th & 3 at ASU 13, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at UTAHQ2 7:45 4th & 8 at UTAH 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WASHQ2 10:39 4th & 4 at ORE 40, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

121st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   UCD
2. W

   UVA
3. L

   NEB
4. L

   COLO
5. L

   WSU
6. L

   WASH
7. L

   CAL
8. W

   ASU
9. L

   USC
10. L

    STAN
11. W

    UTAH
12. L

    ORST

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Oregon'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−1.93
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.21
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• UCDW 53-28 vs UCD99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +2
• UVAW 44-26 vs UVA91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• NEBL 32-35 at NEB37% → 8%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +1
• COLOL 38-41 vs COLO76% → 8%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• WSUL 33-51 at WSU51% → 1%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• WASHL 21-70 vs WASH31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• CALL 49-52 at CAL45% → 29%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −16: Timeouts +23, Scoreboard −19
• ASUW 54-35 vs ASU71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• USCL 20-45 at USC16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20
• STANL 27-52 vs STAN48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• UTAHW 30-28 at UTAH26% → 93%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• ORSTL 24-34 at ORST57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Oregon's side.

Closest call

ORE 44-41 WSU (2022) - Oregon dropped to a 0.8% win probability before pulling it out.