Oregon

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2591st
  Defense−0.0289th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%88th
  Defense36.4%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3276th
  Defense+1.2741st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1987th
  Defense0.0073rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3589th
  Defense+0.0681st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%93rd
  Defense40.9%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%60th
  Defense28.2%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0867th
  Defense2.7275th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%78th
  Defense17.1%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.9%98th
  Defense18.2%85th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MTST
2. W
   OKST
3. W
   NU
4. W
   ORST
5. W
   PSU
6. L
   IU
7. W
   RUTG
8. W
   WIS
9. W
   IOWA
10. W
    MINN
11. W
    USC
12. W
    WASH
13. W
    JMU
14. W
    TTU
15. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oregon.

Players, 2025

1. Dante MooreQB281 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 42nd of 231 QBs
   1.50WAR0.99 to 2.03
2. Jordon DavisonRB74 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 177th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.18
3. Malik BensonWR36 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 142nd of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
4. Noah WhittingtonRB88 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 192nd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Kenyon SadiqTE39 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 23rd of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
6. Jamari JohnsonTE23 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 24th of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Atticus SappingtonPK16 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 39th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Dakorien MooreWR34 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 337th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9419415th of 134Roster talent: 941, 5th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2782786th of 134Recruiting: 278, 6th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%99th of 132Returning production: 19%, 99th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.9+25.94th of 134SP+ rating: +25.9, 4th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.09 of the 0.13 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. at PSUQ4 0:00 4th & 7 at ORE 28, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−7.7 pts
2. vs IUQ3 7:10 4th & 2 at IU 16, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at IOWAQ4 8:36 4th & 12 at IOWA 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at TTUQ4 7:53 4th & 2 at TTU 25, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at PSUQ2 9:36 4th & 3 at PSU 29, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TTUQ2 1:33 4th & 2 at TTU 21, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at TTUQ4 4:45 4th & 3 at TTU 18, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at PSUQ2 3:42 4th & 4 at PSU 24, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

33rd of 136 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

   MTST
2. W

   OKST
3. W

   NU
4. W

   ORST
5. W

   PSU
6. L

   IU
7. W

   RUTG
8. W

   WIS
9. W

   IOWA
10. W

    MINN
11. W

    USC
12. W

    WASH
13. W

    JMU
14. W

    TTU
15. L

    IU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.62
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.75

Game by game

• MTSTW 59-13 vs MTST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6, Timeouts −1
• OKSTW 69-3 vs OKST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NUW 34-14 at NU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• ORSTW 41-7 vs ORST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• PSUW 30-24 at PSU37% → 68%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −4
• IUL 20-30 vs IU73% → 5%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• RUTGW 56-10 at RUTG87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• WISW 21-7 vs WIS97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• IOWAW 18-16 at IOWA65% → 93%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• MINNW 42-13 vs MINN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USCW 42-27 vs USC78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• WASHW 26-14 at WASH67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• JMUW 51-34 vs JMU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• TTUW 23-0 at TTU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• IUL 22-56 at IU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −45, 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.