Next up projections
vs Kentucky
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK) · Kentucky (FBS, SEC)
Our call: Oklahoma by 8.9Strong
All three models favor Oklahoma. The line, shown for comparison only, has Oklahoma by 6.5.
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 ›
Regression watch: Last game's 3-point win matched the play (score -1 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 5th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +6.8); 12th-toughest remaining (+11.1). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 vs UTEP (-19.4)
- Week 2 at Michigan (+11.8)
- Week 3 vs New Mexico (+0.0)
- Week 4 at Georgia (+23.4)
- Week 6 vs Texas (+18.1)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 vs Kentucky (+7.0)
- Week 8 at Mississippi State (+10.7)
- Week 9 vs South Carolina (+8.8)
- Week 10 at Florida (+11.8)
- Week 11 vs Ole Miss (+13.6)
- Week 12 vs Texas A&M (+12.0)
- Week 13 at Missouri (+13.9)
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: Oklahoma leads 2–1 · last: Oklahoma 29–8, 1982 · Oklahoma has won 2 straight
Series history 3 meetings since 1950
- All-time: Oklahoma leads 2–1 (3 meetings since 1950)
- Last meeting: Oklahoma 29–8, 1982, away
- Streak: Oklahoma has won 2 straight
- At Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK): first meeting at Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK)
- Biggest margins: Oklahoma 29–7 (1980) · Kentucky 13–7 (1950)
- Since 2000: none
| Rating | Oklahoma | Kentucky |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +12.2 #30 | +8.0 #46 |
| Elo | 1747 | 1568 |
Projected margin for Oklahoma · 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'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 (Oklahoma); 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 5 games, Kentucky 6 games
Edge: Kentucky wins 3 of 5
Kentucky moves the ball better, has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays. Oklahoma stops plays better and is more disruptive.
-
37% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓49%
-
32%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 45%
-
21%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 18%
-
1.08 Big playson offense ✓1.17
-
1.22 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.18
Run game, head to head · season to date
Oklahoma's runs work 33% of the time; Kentucky's run defense allows 45%. Kentucky's runs work 53% of the time; Oklahoma's run defense allows 32%.
More numbers
| Measure | Oklahoma | Kentucky | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 36.8% | 49.2% | Kentucky |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.08 | 1.17 | Kentucky |
| Def. success rate allowed | 31.9% | 45.3% | Oklahoma |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.22 | 1.18 | Kentucky |
| Havoc created | 20.9% | 17.8% | Oklahoma |
- Run game, success rate: Oklahoma offense 33.3% · Kentucky defense allows 44.8% · edge: Kentucky
- Run game, success rate: Kentucky offense 53.0% · Oklahoma defense allows 31.9% · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Oklahoma offense -0.30 · Kentucky defense allows +0.06 · edge: Kentucky
- Run game, PPA per play: Kentucky offense +0.21 · Oklahoma defense allows -0.07 · 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) · 13
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.
-
Heinecke Named Burlsworth Trophy Walk-On of the Week
NORMAN — University of Oklahoma linebacker Owen Heinecke was named the Burlsworth Trophy national Walk-On of the Week after his performance in leading the…
-
Peyton Bowen Named Thorpe Award National DB of the Week
NORMAN — University of Oklahoma senior defensive back Peyton Bowen was named the Thorpe Award National Defensive Back of the Week after his performance in…
-
Oklahoma coach Brent Venables named national coach of the week
Oklahoma coach Brent Venables was named Paul Bear Bryant National Coach of the Week.
-
Oklahoma Named Pop-Tarts Bowl Crazy Good Team of the Week
NORMAN — Oklahoma has been named the Pop-Tarts Bowl Crazy Good Team of the Week after defeating No. 1 Texas 27-24 on Saturday at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, as…
-
A Kick for the Ages: Tate Sandell Q&A
By: Toby Rowland, Voice of the Sooners
-
Sooners Walk Off No. 1 Texas
DALLAS (AP) — Tate Sandell kicked a 47-yard field goal on the final play and Oklahoma scored touchdowns on special teams and defense in a 27-24 win over No. 1…
-
Texas flaws finally cost them against the Sooners
Texas had flaws that finally cost them in a helluva fight by the Sooners.
-
Oklahoma OL Michael Fasusi doubtful for Red River Rivalry
Oklahoma offensive lineman Michael Fasusi is doubtful for the Red River Rivalry.
-
Oklahoma WR Jahsiear Rogers dismissed from the program
Oklahoma wide receiver Jahsiear Rogers is no longer with the Sooners program.
-
Jahsiear Rogers dismissed from the OU football program
Freshman wide receiver Jahsiear Rogers was dismissed from the Oklahoma football program.
-
Billy Sims and Ricky Williams named to 2026 SEC Football Legends class
Billy Sims and Ricky Williams were named to the 2026 SEC Football Legends class.
-
Billy Sims Named to 2026 SEC Legends Class
NORMAN — Former University of Oklahoma running back Billy Sims, who was the 1978 Heisman Trophy winner and 1979 Heisman runner-up, was announced Thursday as a…
-
Texas-Tennessee was the most-watched Week 4 college football game
Texas-Tennessee drew 9.7 million viewers as Week 4's most-watched game per Nielsen.
4 entries about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Oklahoma 27, Texas 24W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -8.0 ✗ · Our model -4.2 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -6.0 · actual +3 · Closest: Our model
Oklahoma was as low as 16% and won
- Q4 · 2nd & 6 · 82% → 36%Shotgun #16 A.Manning pass complete short left to #4 J.Bishop Jr. caught at OU04, for 15 yards to the OU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 06:32, 1ST DOWN #44 G.Spetic kick attempt good (H: #43 M.Chiumento, LS: #47 T.Dubuc) PENALTY OU Leverage (#34 A.Adebawore) 15 yards from OU00 to UT50
- Q4 14:52 · 1st & 2 · 29% → 68%(14:52) Shotgun #9 L.Avant rush middle for 2 yards gain to the UT00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 14:48, 1ST DOWN #29 T.Sandell kick attempt good (H: #87 J.Ulrich, LS: #50 B.Anderson)
- Q4 · 2nd & 13 · 51% → 88%No Huddle-Shotgun #16 A.Manning pass intercepted by #22 P.Bowen at UT42 #22 P.Bowen return 42 yards to the UT00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:07 #29 T.Sandell kick attempt good (H: #87 J.Ulrich, LS: #50 B.Anderson)
Neutral site at Cotton Bowl · Sat Oct 10, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · vs Texas (FBS, SEC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Texas (FBS, SEC).
- By quarter: Oklahoma 0-7-3-17 · Texas 7-10-0-7
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: Texas #1 · AP: Texas #1
- Pregame Elo: Oklahoma 1731, Texas 1930
- Postgame win probability: 64.8%
Verdict
The 3-point win matched the play: Oklahoma's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.02 vs -0.08, success rate 34% vs 35%) implies roughly a +4 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Texas won 3 of 4
Texas moved the ball better, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive. Oklahoma got more from each play.
-
34% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓35%
-
-0.02✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.08
-
0.81 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.37
-
16% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓23%
More numbers
Oklahoma ran 59 plays, Texas 65. Each number is that team's offense; Texas's column is also what Oklahoma's defense allowed.
| Measure | Oklahoma | Texas | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | -0.02 | -0.08 | Oklahoma |
| Total PPA | -1.3 | -5.0 | Oklahoma |
| Success rate | 33.9% | 35.4% | Texas |
| Explosiveness | 0.81 | 1.37 | Texas |
| Havoc created | 15.9% | 22.8% | Texas |
- 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Mateer QB | 100% | +4.5 | +0.16 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lloyd Avant RB | 34% | +3.7 | +0.37 |
| Tory Blaylock RB | 7% | +0.3 | +0.17 |
| Isaiah Sategna WR | 3% | -0.7 | -0.67 |
| Jonathan Hatton Jr. RB | 17% | -2.5 | -0.50 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hayden Hansen TE | 4% | +2.3 | +2.27 |
| Isaiah Sategna WR | 36% | +2.0 | +0.20 |
| Lloyd Avant RB | 7% | +1.4 | +0.71 |
| Rocky Beers TE | 14% | +1.1 | +0.27 |
By play type
| Measure | Oklahoma | Texas | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.16 | +0.01 | Texas |
| Rushing success | 31.0% | 40.0% | Texas |
| Passing PPA | +0.16 | +0.18 | Texas |
| Passing success | 39.3% | 34.4% | Oklahoma |
| Standard downs PPA | -0.03 | +0.06 | Texas |
| Standard downs success | 44.2% | 40.9% | Oklahoma |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.01 | -0.36 | Oklahoma |
| Passing downs success | 6.2% | 23.8% | Texas |
Havoc detail — Oklahoma defense: TFL 2, sacks 2, takeaways 2, breakups 4 on 63 snaps. Texas defense: TFL 7, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 4 on 57 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.
By half
Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.51 points a play (Oklahoma -0.29 in the first half, +0.22 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| Oklahoma | Texas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | -0.06 | +0.05 | +0.23 | -0.17 |
| Success rate | 23% | 45% | 39% | 38% |
| Plays | 26 | 31 | 31 | 32 |
Recruiting
| Measure | Oklahoma | Texas |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 15 | 7 |
| 2026 class points | 252.55 | 291.18 |
| Talent composite | 851.1 #17 of 138 |
985.2 #2 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 16 in, 29 out
Arrivals (16)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trell Harris WR | Virginia | 4 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| E'Marion Harris OT | Arkansas | 4 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Parker Livingstone WR | Texas | 4 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jack Van Dorselaer TE | Tennessee | 4 | Immediate | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Hayden Hansen TE | Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Caleb Nitta IOL | Western Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Lloyd Avant RB | Colorado State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Rocky Beers TE | Colorado State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Dakoda Fields CB | Oregon | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Kenny Ozowalu EDGE | UTSA | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
+6 more not shown (16 total).
Departures (29)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adepoju Adebawore EDGE | undecided | 5 | Withdrawn | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Kobie McKinzie LB | Northwestern | 4 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Sammy Omosigho LB | UCLA | 4 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Jayden Gibson WR | South Carolina | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Michael Hawkins Jr. QB | West Virginia | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Maliek Hawkins CB | West Virginia | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Devon Jordan CB | Baylor | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Jake Taylor OT | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Marcus Wimberly S | Utah | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jovantae Barnes RB | Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
+19 more not shown (29 total).
2026 commits · 25
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Kreul EDGE | Bradenton, FL | 4 | 0.9695 |
| Jonathan Hatton Jr. RB | Cibolo, TX | 4 | 0.9638 |
| Bowe Bentley QB | Celina, TX | 4 | 0.9619 |
| Jayden Petit WR | Naples, FL | 4 | 0.9262 |
| Deacon Schmitt IOL | Windsor, CO | 4 | 0.9093 |
| Tyler Ruxer TE | Lincoln City, IN | 4 | 0.9069 |
| Jahsiear Rogers WR | Middletown, DE | 4 | 0.9034 |
| Derrick Johnson II CB | Murrieta, CA | 4 | 0.9021 |
| Jacob Curry LB | Ponte Vedra Beach, FL | 4 | 0.8979 |
| Daniel Odom WR | Bellflower, CA | 4 | 0.8933 |
| Matthew Nelson EDGE | Bryant, AR | 4 | 0.8922 |
| Dane Bathurst LB | Carmel, IN | 3 | 0.8900 |
| DeZephen Walker RB | Peculiar, MO | 3 | 0.8900 |
| Noah Best IOL | Midlothian, TX | 3 | 0.8889 |
| Xavier Okwufulueze ATH | Owasso, OK | 3 | 0.8889 |
+10 more not shown (25 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Oklahoma in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 63.2% | 181.3 | 74.6% |
| Passing | 92.1% | 83.0 | 93.3% |
| Receiving | 41.6% | 73.4 | 41.2% |
| Rushing | 121.6% | 24.8 | 84.9% |
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.