The SportsWire

Oklahoma State

2026 · week 6 result vs UCF

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Houston

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · TDECU Stadium (Houston) · Houston (FBS, Big 12)

Our call: Houston by 10.7Strong

All three models favor Houston. The line, shown for comparison only, has Houston by 3.5.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: at Houston ›

Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 14-point win ran 15 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 49th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -3.1); 47th-toughest remaining (+5.7). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
  • Week 1 at Tulsa (-4.8)
  • Week 2 vs Oregon (+20.4)
  • Week 3 vs Murray State (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 4 at West Virginia (-2.6)
  • Week 6 vs UCF (+4.5)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Houston (+12.1)
  • Week 8 vs Colorado (-1.5)
  • Week 9 at Iowa State (+1.9)
  • Week 10 at Kansas State (+3.6)
  • Week 11 vs Texas Tech (+15.9)
  • Week 12 at Arizona State (+0.7)
  • Week 13 vs Kansas (+7.3)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Houston leads 11–10–1 · last: Houston 39–17, 2025

Series history 22 meetings since 1951
  • All-time: Houston leads 11–10–1 (22 meetings since 1951)
  • Last meeting: Houston 39–17, 2025, Boone Pickens Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At TDECU Stadium: Oklahoma State leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
  • Biggest margins: Oklahoma State 35–0 (1987) · Houston 35–9 (1966)
  • Since 2000: Houston leads 3–2 (5 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Houston 39–17Boone Pickens Stadium
2023Oklahoma State 43–30TDECU Stadium
2009Houston 45–35Boone Pickens Stadium
2008Oklahoma State 56–37Boone Pickens Stadium
2006Houston 34–25Robertson Stadium
RatingOklahoma StateHouston
SP+ +13.3 #22 +15.2 #19
Elo 1373 1612

Projected margin for Oklahoma State · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
-4.4
Oklahoma State +13.3 vs Houston +15.2
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-12.1
Oklahoma State 1373 vs Houston 1612
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-3.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-15.7
Oklahoma State -1.0 vs Houston +12.1
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Oklahoma State's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Houston); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · Oklahoma State 5 games, Houston 6 games

Edge: Oklahoma State wins 3 of 5

Oklahoma State stops plays better, has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays. Houston moves the ball better and is more disruptive.

Oklahoma Statelonger bar = betterHouston

Run game, head to head · season to date

Oklahoma State's runs work 47% of the time; Houston's run defense allows 40%. Houston's runs work 51% of the time; Oklahoma State's run defense allows 43%.

More numbers
MeasureOklahoma StateHoustonEdge
Off. success rate48.6%53.3%Houston
Off. explosiveness1.101.10Oklahoma State
Def. success rate allowed39.5%39.9%Oklahoma State
Def. explosiveness allowed1.221.32Oklahoma State
Havoc created15.3%19.9%Houston
  • Run game, success rate: Oklahoma State offense 46.7% · Houston defense allows 40.3% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Houston offense 50.9% · Oklahoma State defense allows 42.5% · edge: Houston
  • Run game, PPA per play: Oklahoma State offense +0.01 · Houston defense allows -0.02 · edge: Houston
  • Run game, PPA per play: Houston offense +0.17 · Oklahoma State defense allows +0.03 · edge: even
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 16

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

4 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Oklahoma State 42, UCF 28W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -3.8 ✗ · Our model -2.6 ✗ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +14 · Closest: Our model

Oklahoma State was as low as 29% and won Oklahoma State was as low as 29% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 42–28
  1. Q4 10:32 · 2nd & 8 · 67% → 94%
    (10:32) No Huddle-Shotgun #12 K.Jenkins rush left for 11 yards loss to the UCF28 fumbled by #12 K.Jenkins at UCF34 recovered by OSU #1 E.Jackson at UCF28 #1 E.Jackson return 28 yards to the UCF00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:32. The previous play is under automatic review - "Fumble". CALL UPHELD #17 D.Mestemaker rush attempt Successful PENALTY UCF Offside declined
  2. Q2 0:15 · 1st & 3 · 70% → 44%
    (00:15) No Huddle-Shotgun #12 K.Jenkins pass complete short left to #2 T.Hornes caught at OSU00, for 3 yards to the OSU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:13 Timeout UCF, clock 00:16 #15 W.Stone kick attempt good (H: #97 M.Denaburg, LS: #44 K.Hicks)
  3. Q1 6:20 · 1st & 10 · 44% → 66%
    (06:20) No Huddle-Shotgun #17 D.Mestemaker rush middle for 11 yards gain to the UCF00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 06:19, 1ST DOWN #16 S.Keltner kick attempt good (H: #85 N.Ost, LS: #42 C.Yates)

Home at Boone Pickens Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs UCF (FBS, Big 12)

Opponent for every game-level number: UCF (FBS, Big 12).

Verdict

The scoreboard flattered Oklahoma State: the +14 margin ran 15 points ahead of the -1 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.22 vs +0.18, success rate 54% vs 44%) (UCF turned it over once).

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Even game split 2–2

Oklahoma State moved the ball better and got more from each play. UCF hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.

Oklahoma Statelonger bar = betterUCF
More numbers

Oklahoma State ran 63 plays, UCF 82. Each number is that team's offense; UCF's column is also what Oklahoma State's defense allowed.

MeasureOklahoma StateUCFEdge
PPA / play+0.22+0.18Oklahoma State
Total PPA+14.0+14.7UCF
Success rate54.0%43.9%Oklahoma State
Explosiveness1.001.30UCF
Havoc created8.4%13.3%UCF
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

Oklahoma State players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Drew Mestemaker QB 100% +15.8 +0.54

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Drew Mestemaker QB 3% +2.5 +2.52
Morgan McPhaul TE 3% +2.5 +2.45
Ayo Adeyi RB 13% -1.4 -0.35
Caleb Hawkins RB 74% -5.8 -0.25

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Justin Bowick WR 31% +9.9 +1.10
Wyatt Young WR 24% +5.8 +0.82
Miles Coleman WR 14% +5.0 +1.25
Caleb Hawkins RB 7% +2.6 +1.29
By play type
MeasureOklahoma StateUCFEdge
Rushing PPA-0.10-0.15Oklahoma State
Rushing success51.6%41.0%Oklahoma State
Passing PPA+0.54+0.57UCF
Passing success55.2%47.6%Oklahoma State
Standard downs PPA+0.12+0.00Oklahoma State
Standard downs success59.2%46.6%Oklahoma State
Passing downs PPA+0.59+0.60UCF
Passing downs success35.7%37.5%UCF

Havoc detail — Oklahoma State defense: TFL 3, sacks 1, takeaways 2, breakups 1 on 83 snaps. UCF defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 1, breakups 4 on 60 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ Oklahoma StateUCF ▶
  • 10Drives11
  • 8Scoring opportunities9
  • 4.2Points per opportunity3.1
  • own 33Avg. starting field positionown 28

Recruiting

Oklahoma State's 2026 class: #69 · 190.27 points.

MeasureOklahoma StateUCF
Talent composite 672.7
#65 of 138
672.1
#66 of 138
Transfer portal · 55 in, 65 out

Arrivals (55)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Drew Mestemaker QB North Texas 5 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Caleb Hawkins RB North Texas 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Wyatt Young WR North Texas 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Justin Bowick WR Illinois 4 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Chris Barnes WR Wake Forest 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Quinton Hammonds S North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Desmond Magiya OT North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Miles Coleman WR North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Braydon Nelson OT North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Johnny Dickson III IOL North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026

+45 more not shown (55 total).

Departures (65)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Wendell Gregory EDGE Kansas State 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Darius Thomas LB undecided 3 Immediate Oct 7, 2025
Noah McKinney IOL TCU 3 Immediate Oct 16, 2025
Carrington Pierce CB USC 3 Immediate Dec 14, 2025
Josh Ford TE Alabama 3 Immediate Dec 16, 2025
Jaden Perez WR undecided 3 Immediate Dec 28, 2025
Davis Dotson OT undecided 3 Immediate Jan 1, 2026
Da'Wain Lofton WR undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Sam Jackson V WR undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Ryker Haff OT undecided 3 Immediate Jan 3, 2026

+55 more not shown (65 total).

2026 commits · 18
PlayerHometown★Rating
KD Jones RB Jenks, OK 3 0.8878
Braeden Presley S Bixby, OK 3 0.8800
Kole Seaton OT Mesquite, TX 3 0.8767
Landon Bland EDGE Carthage, MO 3 0.8767
Joey Quinn EDGE Chicago, IL 3 0.8700
Eli Holbrook IOL Arlington, TX 3 0.8678
Javen Hall RB Washington, OK 3 0.8650
Jabarie Thornton WR Waco, TX 3 0.8644
Maliek Bracy CB Argyle, TX 3 0.8578
Broderick Vehrs QB Chandler, AZ 3 0.8567
O'Ryan Mosley IOL Houma, LA 3 0.8567
Marrel Davis III CB Humble, TX 3 0.8500
Mark Brown III S Corsicana, TX 3 0.8489
Isaiah Bowman IOL Conway, AR 3 0.8467
Savion Barthelemy DL Belle Chasse, LA 3 0.8467

+3 more not shown (18 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Oklahoma State in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall0.0%0.00.0%
Passing0.0%0.00.0%
Receiving0.0%0.00.0%
Rushing0.0%0.00.0%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.