Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.3498th
  Defense+0.1145th
• 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.
  Offense56.0%99th
  Defense45.1%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1415th
  Defense+1.2548th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3299th
  Defense+0.1131st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3786th
  Defense+0.1762nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense62.0%99th
  Defense48.4%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.0%93rd
  Defense37.1%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6198th
  Defense2.9758th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%88th
  Defense18.5%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.6%98th
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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. L
   UGA
2. W
   EWU
3. W
   BYU
4. W
   WSU
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   UCLA
8. W
   CAL
9. W
   COLO
10. L
    WASH
11. W
    UTAH
12. L
    ORST
13. W
    UNC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2022

1. Bo NixQB378 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 14th of 234 QBs
   2.32WAR1.54 to 3.14
2. Noah WhittingtonRB128 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 50th of 384 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.51
3. Troy FranklinWR53 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 147th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Chase CotaWR37 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 172nd of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
5. Terrance FergusonTE29 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 56th of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
6. Camden LewisPK15 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 47th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Bucky IrvingRB13 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 310th of 384 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
8. Kris HutsonWR42 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 388th of 455 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.06 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8788787th of 129Roster talent: 878, 7th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2672679th of 129Recruiting: 267, 9th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  17%17%124th of 128Returning production: 17%, 124th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.9+18.911th of 129SP+ rating: +18.9, 11th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.04 of the 0.08 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 3:54 4th & 3 at WASH 8, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at ORSTQ4 12:24 4th & 5 at ORE 13, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
3. vs WASHQ2 0:28 4th & 2 at ORE 33, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at ORSTQ2 7:45 4th & 13 at ORST 35, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UCLAQ4 0:00 4th & 14 at UCLA 17, up 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UNCQ3 5:36 4th & 7 at UNC 27, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at ORSTQ3 4:46 4th & 4 at ORST 24, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs WASHQ4 0:33 4th & 14 at ORE 21, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

27th of 131 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. L

   UGA
2. W

   EWU
3. W

   BYU
4. W

   WSU
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   UCLA
8. W

   CAL
9. W

   COLO
10. L

    WASH
11. W

    UTAH
12. L

    ORST
13. W

    UNC

What moved it, 2022

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+0.87
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.82

Game by game

• UGAL 3-49 at UGA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• EWUW 70-14 vs EWU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• BYUW 41-20 vs BYU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• WSUW 44-41 at WSU70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts +1
• STANW 45-27 vs STAN83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• ARIZW 49-22 at ARIZ76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• UCLAW 45-30 vs UCLA66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• CALW 42-24 at CAL87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• COLOW 49-10 at COLO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• WASHL 34-37 vs WASH77% → 21%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• UTAHW 20-17 vs UTAH46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• ORSTL 34-38 at ORST45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• UNCW 28-27 at UNC77% → 75%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +28, Clock +3

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.