The SportsWire

Oklahoma

2026 · week 6 result vs Texas

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

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 ›

Game page: vs Kentucky ›

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
RatingOklahomaKentucky
SP+ +12.2 #30 +8.0 #46
Elo 1747 1568

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

SP+
+6.7
Oklahoma +12.2 vs Kentucky +8.0
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+9.7
Oklahoma 1747 vs Kentucky 1568
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+6.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+10.2
Oklahoma +14.7 vs Kentucky +7.0
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'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.

Oklahomalonger bar = betterKentucky

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
MeasureOklahomaKentuckyEdge
Off. success rate36.8%49.2%Kentucky
Off. explosiveness1.081.17Kentucky
Def. success rate allowed31.9%45.3%Oklahoma
Def. explosiveness allowed1.221.18Kentucky
Havoc created20.9%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.

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 Oklahoma was as low as 16% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 27–24
  1. 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
  2. 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)
  3. 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).

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.

Oklahomalonger bar = betterTexas
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.

MeasureOklahomaTexasEdge
PPA / play-0.02-0.08Oklahoma
Total PPA-1.3-5.0Oklahoma
Success rate33.9%35.4%Texas
Explosiveness0.811.37Texas
Havoc created15.9%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
John Mateer QB 100% +4.5 +0.16

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureOklahomaTexasEdge
Rushing PPA-0.16+0.01Texas
Rushing success31.0%40.0%Texas
Passing PPA+0.16+0.18Texas
Passing success39.3%34.4%Oklahoma
Standard downs PPA-0.03+0.06Texas
Standard downs success44.2%40.9%Oklahoma
Passing downs PPA+0.01-0.36Oklahoma
Passing downs success6.2%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.

◀ OklahomaTexas ▶
  • 14Drives15
  • 9Scoring opportunities11
  • 1.4Points per opportunity1.5
  • own 26Avg. starting field positionown 28
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.

OklahomaTexas
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play-0.06+0.05+0.23-0.17
Success rate23%45%39%38%
Plays26313132

Recruiting

MeasureOklahomaTexas
2026 class rank157
2026 class points252.55291.18
Talent composite 851.1
#17 of 138
985.2
#2 of 138
Transfer portal · 16 in, 29 out

Arrivals (16)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall63.2%181.374.6%
Passing92.1%83.093.3%
Receiving41.6%73.441.2%
Rushing121.6%24.884.9%

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.