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)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Houston 39–17 | Boone Pickens Stadium |
| 2023 | Oklahoma State 43–30 | TDECU Stadium |
| 2009 | Houston 45–35 | Boone Pickens Stadium |
| 2008 | Oklahoma State 56–37 | Boone Pickens Stadium |
| 2006 | Houston 34–25 | Robertson Stadium |
| Rating | Oklahoma State | Houston |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +13.3 #22 | +15.2 #19 |
| Elo | 1373 | 1612 |
Projected margin for Oklahoma State · three models and the line, side by side
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.
-
49% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓53%
-
39%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 40%
-
15% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓20%
-
1.10✓ Big playson offense 1.10
-
1.22✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.32
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
| Measure | Oklahoma State | Houston | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 48.6% | 53.3% | Houston |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.10 | 1.10 | Oklahoma State |
| Def. success rate allowed | 39.5% | 39.9% | Oklahoma State |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.22 | 1.32 | Oklahoma State |
| Havoc created | 15.3% | 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.
-
Oklahoma State visits Houston for AP Top 25 matchup
Complete notes available here
- Photo Gallery: Cowboy Football vs UCF
-
Wesloski, Keltner each claim third Big 12 weekly award
STILLWATER – No. 18 Oklahoma State added two more Big 12 weekly football awards Monday following its win over UCF as linebacker Ethan Wesloski was named the…
- Mr. Automatic Sam has been named Big 12 Special Teams Player of The Week @SamKeltner2024
- Ethan has been named Big 12 Conference Defensive Player of The Week
-
Cowboy Football stays at No. 18 in AP Poll; debuts at No. 20 in US LBM Coaches Poll
STILLWATER - Oklahoma State maintained its position at No. 18 in the AP Top 25 and entered the US LBM Coaches Poll at No. 20 on Sunday following a 42-28…
-
Eric Morris postgame press conference after Cowboy Football's win over UCF
STILLWATER - Oklahoma State's football coach Eric Morris spoke with the media after a 42-28 win over the UCF Knights.
-
#OkState remains at No. 18 this week.
Houston is No. 20.
-
Postgame Quotes: OSU-UCF
Postgame Quote Sheet:
-
No. 18 Oklahoma State downs UCF, 42-28, to move to 2-0 in Big 12 play
STILLWATER (AP) — Drew Mestemaker threw for 304 yards and two touchdowns, Evan Jackson returned a fumble 28 yards for another score, and No. 18 Oklahoma State…
-
Eric Morris talks UCF preparation on Inside OSU Athletics
Oklahoma State head football coach Eric Morris sits down with Dave Hunziker to discuss the benefits of the bye week following the Cowboys victory over West…
-
Mestemaker in the top 15 for Golden Arm Award
STILLWATER – Oklahoma State quarterback Drew Mestemaker is a top 15 candidate for the 2026 Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award, announced Thursday by the Johnny…
-
Eric Morris on adding Braylin Presley and eligibility process
Eric Morris says they are working through eligibility for Braylin Presley.
-
Oklahoma State rises to No. 18 in AP Top 25
STILLWATER - The Oklahoma State football team moved up one spot to No. 18 in the AP Top 25 on Sunday following its bye week.
-
Oklahoma State already matches last year's offensive touchdown total
The Cowboys have scored 17 offensive touchdowns through four games this season.
-
Tulsa quarterback Baylor Hayes will start Thursday versus North Texas
Tulsa QB Baylor Hayes returns from a knee injury to start at home against North Texas.
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
- 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
- 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)
- 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).
- By quarter: Oklahoma State 7-14-3-18 · UCF 14-7-0-7
- Week 6 polls: AP: Oklahoma State #18
- Pregame Elo: Oklahoma State 1330, UCF 1488
- Postgame win probability: 87.8%
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.
-
54%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 44%
-
+0.22✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.18
-
1.00 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.30
-
8% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓13%
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.
| Measure | Oklahoma State | UCF | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.22 | +0.18 | Oklahoma State |
| Total PPA | +14.0 | +14.7 | UCF |
| Success rate | 54.0% | 43.9% | Oklahoma State |
| Explosiveness | 1.00 | 1.30 | UCF |
| Havoc created | 8.4% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drew Mestemaker QB | 100% | +15.8 | +0.54 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | Oklahoma State | UCF | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.10 | -0.15 | Oklahoma State |
| Rushing success | 51.6% | 41.0% | Oklahoma State |
| Passing PPA | +0.54 | +0.57 | UCF |
| Passing success | 55.2% | 47.6% | Oklahoma State |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.12 | +0.00 | Oklahoma State |
| Standard downs success | 59.2% | 46.6% | Oklahoma State |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.59 | +0.60 | UCF |
| Passing downs success | 35.7% | 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.
Recruiting
Oklahoma State's 2026 class: #69 · 190.27 points.
| Measure | Oklahoma State | UCF |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 672.7 #65 of 138 |
672.1 #66 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 55 in, 65 out
Arrivals (55)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Passing | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Receiving | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Rushing | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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.