Oregon

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+0.1872nd
  Defense+0.1446th
• 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.
  Offense49.9%91st
  Defense44.8%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2234th
  Defense+1.1390th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0340th
  Defense+0.0944th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3587th
  Defense+0.1851st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.7%94th
  Defense50.8%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%57th
  Defense29.5%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2686th
  Defense2.8260th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%67th
  Defense20.2%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%29th
  Defense13.8%20th

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 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
   STAN
2. W
   WSU
3. W
   UCLA
4. L
   ORST
5. L
   CAL
6. W
   USC
7. L
   ISU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2020

1. Tyler ShoughQB215 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 43rd of 212 QBs
   0.76WAR0.38 to 1.18
2. Travis DyeRB70 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 130th of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.30
3. CJ VerdellRB74 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 162nd of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Anthony BrownQB30 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 151st of 212 QBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
5. Cyrus Habibi-LikioRB22 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 268th of 338 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.08
6. Johnny Johnson IIIWR23 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 221st of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Jaylon ReddWR37 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Mycah PittmanWR12 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 320th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81781717th of 127Roster talent: 817, 17th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25725715th of 127Recruiting: 257, 15th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%94th of 127Returning production: 49%, 94th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.1+18.110th of 127SP+ rating: +18.1, 10th 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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.05 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 UCLAQ4 1:17 4th & 3 at ORE 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs UCLAQ2 0:50 4th & 18 at UCLA 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at ISUQ3 5:19 4th & 3 at ORE 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at ISUQ4 14:08 4th & 1 at ORE 24, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at CALQ3 12:09 4th & 4 at ORE 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at USCQ2 13:05 4th & 4 at ORE 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at CALQ1 8:06 4th & 3 at CAL 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs STANQ1 8:55 4th & 2 at ORE 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

93rd of 127 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

   STAN
2. W

   WSU
3. W

   UCLA
4. L

   ORST
5. L

   CAL
6. W

   USC
7. L

   ISU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.26
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.96

Game by game

• STANW 35-14 vs STAN77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• WSUW 43-29 at WSU79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• UCLAW 38-35 vs UCLA87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• ORSTL 38-41 at ORST84% → 19%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• CALL 17-21 at CAL71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• USCW 31-24 at USC42% → 90%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• ISUL 17-34 at ISU37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, 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.