Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1151st
  Defense0.0080th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%77th
  Defense38.5%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1432nd
  Defense+1.2628th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0965th
  Defense−0.0891st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1857th
  Defense+0.0768th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%83rd
  Defense42.8%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%39th
  Defense30.8%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1078th
  Defense2.4390th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%74th
  Defense23.3%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%80th
  Defense20.0%88th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   SUU
2. W
   NEB
3. W
   WYO
4. L
   ASU
5. W
   CAL
6. L
   WSU
7. L
   STAN
8. L
   UCLA
9. W
   UTAH
10. L
    WASH
11. W
    ARIZ
12. W
    ORST
13. L
    BOIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2017

1. Justin HerbertQB190 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 73rd of 226 QBs
   1.04WAR0.68 to 1.38
2. Royce FreemanRB188 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 19th of 352 RBs
   0.60WAR0.44 to 0.77
3. Tony Brooks-JamesRB72 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 203rd of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.22
4. Kani BenoitRB64 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 229th of 352 RBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
5. Dillon MitchellWR43 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 240th of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Adam StackPK43 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 79th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Aidan SchneiderPK8 plays · +0.472 pts/play · 82nd of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Charles NelsonWR34 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72072022nd of 130Roster talent: 720, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23123121st of 130Recruiting: 231, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%90th of 128Returning production: 49%, 90th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.1+9.137th of 128SP+ rating: +9.1, 37th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.06 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 WSUQ3 12:02 4th & 2 at ORE 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. vs BOISQ2 12:55 4th & 2 at ORE 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs WSUQ2 4:04 4th & 9 at WSU 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs CALQ3 3:17 4th & 2 at ORE 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at ASUQ2 9:45 4th & 5 at ASU 41, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs BOISQ3 8:00 4th & 3 at ORE 28, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs WSUQ1 1:59 4th & 2 at ORE 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WSUQ1 4:45 4th & 3 at WSU 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

104th of 130 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

   SUU
2. W

   NEB
3. W

   WYO
4. L

   ASU
5. W

   CAL
6. L

   WSU
7. L

   STAN
8. L

   UCLA
9. W

   UTAH
10. L

    WASH
11. W

    ARIZ
12. W

    ORST
13. L

    BOIS

What moved it, 2017

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−0.60
• Clock−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• SUUW 77-21 vs SUU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NEBW 42-35 vs NEB81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• WYOW 49-13 at WYO84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• ASUL 35-37 at ASU83% → 5%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −2
• CALW 45-24 vs CAL90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• WSUL 10-33 vs WSU44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• STANL 7-49 at STAN24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28
• UCLAL 14-31 at UCLA31% → 2%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• UTAHW 41-20 vs UTAH46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 3-38 at WASH11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• ARIZW 48-28 vs ARIZ59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 69-10 vs ORST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +7
• BOISL 28-38 vs BOIS71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4

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.