Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1877th
  Defense+0.0759th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%66th
  Defense42.4%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2259th
  Defense+1.1376th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1162nd
  Defense0.0078th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2775th
  Defense+0.1745th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%60th
  Defense46.6%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.1%64th
  Defense33.4%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1073rd
  Defense2.7867th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%82nd
  Defense18.6%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%69th
  Defense16.6%59th

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, 2018

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
   BGSU
2. W
   PRST
3. W
   SJSU
4. L
   STAN
5. W
   CAL
6. W
   WASH
7. L
   WSU
8. L
   ARIZ
9. W
   UCLA
10. L
    UTAH
11. W
    ASU
12. W
    ORST
13. W
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2018

1. Justin HerbertQB325 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 41st of 225 QBs
   1.65WAR1.15 to 2.22
2. CJ VerdellRB175 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 36th of 351 RBs
   0.60WAR0.47 to 0.72
3. Travis DyeRB111 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 135th of 351 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.41
4. Dillon MitchellWR105 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 33rd of 434 WRs
   0.22WAR0.05 to 0.39
5. Jaylon ReddWR41 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 247th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
6. Jacob BreelandTE25 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 31st of 204 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Brenden SchoolerDB19 plays · +0.109 pts/play
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Tony Brooks-JamesRB15 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 284th of 351 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69669626th of 130Roster talent: 696, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23823819th of 130Recruiting: 238, 19th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%59th of 129Returning production: 66%, 59th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.3+7.341st of 130SP+ rating: +7.3, 41st of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.12 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 WASHQ4 5:05 4th & 19 at WASH 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. vs ASUQ3 13:31 4th & 4 at ASU 38, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs STANQ3 9:34 4th & 23 at STAN 35, up 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. vs UCLAQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at ORE 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs UCLAQ2 1:15 4th & 3 at UCLA 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs UCLAQ2 11:19 4th & 3 at UCLA 46, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UCLAQ2 6:45 4th & 5 at UCLA 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at UTAHQ2 1:05 4th & 2 at UTAH 18, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

59th 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

   BGSU
2. W

   PRST
3. W

   SJSU
4. L

   STAN
5. W

   CAL
6. W

   WASH
7. L

   WSU
8. L

   ARIZ
9. W

   UCLA
10. L

    UTAH
11. W

    ASU
12. W

    ORST
13. W

    MSU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.82
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock+0.31
• Timeouts−0.36
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• BGSUW 58-24 vs BGSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• PRSTW 62-14 vs PRST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SJSUW 35-22 vs SJSU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +4
• STANL 31-38 vs STAN45% → 10%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −15
• CALW 42-24 at CAL56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• WASHW 30-27 vs WASH39% → 43%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −21
• WSUL 20-34 at WSU46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• ARIZL 15-44 at ARIZ74% → 0%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −61, Possession & field position +1
• UCLAW 42-21 vs UCLA80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• UTAHL 25-32 at UTAH44% → 9%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• ASUW 31-29 vs ASU62% → 80%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +3
• ORSTW 55-15 at ORST90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• MSUW 7-6 vs MSU56% → 65%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +2, Timeouts +1

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.