Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2275th
  Defense+0.1351st
• 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.
  Offense48.9%91st
  Defense44.9%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1612th
  Defense+1.2271st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2591st
  Defense+0.1146th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2249th
  Defense+0.1572nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.6%91st
  Defense49.7%32nd
• 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%80th
  Defense34.2%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5294th
  Defense2.9953rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.3%98th
  Defense19.1%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%88th
  Defense14.7%23rd

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, 2021

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
   FRES
2. W
   OSU
3. W
   STBK
4. W
   ARIZ
5. L
   STAN
6. W
   CAL
7. W
   UCLA
8. W
   COLO
9. W
   WASH
10. W
    WSU
11. L
    UTAH
12. W
    ORST
13. L
    UTAH
14. L
    OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2021

1. Anthony BrownQB414 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 31st of 219 QBs
   2.00WAR1.17 to 2.83
2. Travis DyeRB219 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 7th of 387 RBs
   0.98WAR0.78 to 1.17
3. CJ VerdellRB62 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 240th of 387 RBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
4. Devon WilliamsWR37 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 136th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Johnny Johnson IIIWR25 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 291st of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
6. Kris HutsonWR31 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 325th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Jaylon ReddWR20 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 369th of 474 WRs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
8. Tom SneeP36 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 83rd of 101 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8868868th of 130Roster talent: 886, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2712718th of 130Recruiting: 271, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%100th of 128Returning production: 52%, 100th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.2+10.238th of 130SP+ rating: +10.2, 38th 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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 FRESQ4 10:38 4th & 3 at ORE 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at WASHQ3 2:44 4th & 1 at ORE 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at WASHQ4 2:14 4th & 28 at WASH 32, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. at STANQ3 0:53 4th & 4 at STAN 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at OSUQ4 0:20 4th & 1 at OSU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at OSUQ2 0:34 4th & 14 at OSU 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs WSUQ3 2:54 4th & 4 at WSU 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at WASHQ2 0:01 4th & 4 at ORE 49, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

51st 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

   FRES
2. W

   OSU
3. W

   STBK
4. W

   ARIZ
5. L

   STAN
6. W

   CAL
7. W

   UCLA
8. W

   COLO
9. W

   WASH
10. W

    WSU
11. L

    UTAH
12. W

    ORST
13. L

    UTAH
14. L

    OU

What moved it, 2021

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
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.19
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• FRESW 31-24 vs FRES90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• OSUW 35-28 at OSU16% → 91%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• STBKW 48-7 vs STBK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ARIZW 41-19 vs ARIZ97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• STANL 24-31 at STAN76% → 9%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +19
• CALW 24-17 vs CAL81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• UCLAW 34-31 at UCLA48% → 94%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• COLOW 52-29 vs COLO95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• WASHW 26-16 at WASH68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• WSUW 38-24 vs WSU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 7-38 at UTAH49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −47
• ORSTW 38-29 vs ORST74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27
• UTAHL 10-38 at UTAH49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −1
• OUL 32-47 at OU32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, 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.