Week 2 in review

Flattered and undersold

Flattered · the score ran ahead of the play by more than 7 points

• Utah vs Arkansas, 43–10 W+33 vs +15 implied · +18
  The scoreboard flattered Utah: the +33 margin ran 18 points ahead of the +15 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.34 vs +0.07, success rate 51% vs 32%) (Arkansas turned it over once).
• Texas Tech at Oregon State, 35–24 W+11 vs -5 implied · +16
  The scoreboard flattered Texas Tech: the +11 margin ran 16 points ahead of the -5 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.20 vs +0.28, though Texas Tech was more consistent: success rate 40% vs 30%) (Oregon State turned it over once).
• Penn State at Temple, 27–9 W+18 vs +3 implied · +15
  The scoreboard flattered Penn State: the +18 margin ran 15 points ahead of the +3 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.21 vs +0.18, success rate 44% vs 41%) (Temple turned it over once).
• Houston vs Southern, 77–6 W+71 vs +56 implied · +15
  The scoreboard flattered Houston: the +71 margin ran 15 points ahead of the +56 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.77 vs -0.14, success rate 74% vs 14%) (Southern turned it over 3 times), against an FCS opponent.
• Notre Dame vs Rice, 52–0 W+52 vs +39 implied · +13
  The scoreboard flattered Notre Dame: the +52 margin ran 13 points ahead of the +39 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.43 vs -0.21, success rate 55% vs 21%) (Rice turned it over 4 times).

Undersold · the score ran behind the play by more than 7 points

• Oregon at Oklahoma State, 31–39 L-8 vs +6 implied · -14
  The scoreboard undersold Oregon: the -8 margin ran 14 points behind the +6 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.15 vs +0.04, though Oklahoma State was more consistent: success rate 31% vs 44%).

Closest projection

Over the 18 games this week where SP+, Elo and the line all existed before kickoff, the line as a benchmark (its miss only, never closest) (5 more shown on the Projections page but not in the record: no page before kickoff).

Line only (no SP+ or Elo rating for an FCS opponent): 5 games, avg miss 12.9; not in the table.

Upsets

Ranked teams that lost to an unranked or lower-ranked opponent, by the AP Top 25 in effect for week 2, with each model's pregame margin from the ranked side and the line beside them for comparison only; ✓ when a model had the winner, ✗ when it did not.

• #1 Ohio State lost at #4 TexasTexas 24, Ohio State 23
  SP+ ✗

  +2.1

  Elo ✗

  +0.4

  Line

  -2.0

  Our model

  –
• #6 Oregon lost at Oklahoma StateOklahoma State 39, Oregon 31
  SP+ ✗

  +20.3

  Elo ✗

  +23.9

  Line

  +23.0

  Our model

  –
• #11 Oklahoma lost at MichiganMichigan 17, Oklahoma 10
  SP+ ✗

  +7.0

  Elo ✗

  +2.0

  Line

  +5.5

  Our model

  –

Called it: SP+ 0 of 3 · Elo 0 of 3 · Our model 0 of 0.

Biggest swings

The plays that moved win probability most, across the 29 games with win-probability data, from the home side.

• Utah State at WashingtonWashington 41% → 92%
  Q4 1:49, 1st & 10: (01:49) #1 D.Williams Jr. pass incomplete short right to #2 D.Roebuck thrown to USU38 · final Washington 16, Utah State 14
• UCF at PittsburghPittsburgh 16% → 66%
  Q4 1:22, 1st & 10: (01:22) Kneel down by #6 M.Heintschel at UCF28 for loss of 2 yards · final Pittsburgh 12, UCF 7
• Texas Tech at Oregon StateOregon State 63% → 18%
  Q4 14:53, 1st & 10: (14:53) Shotgun #2 B.Atkinson pass complete short left to #0 A.Butler caught at TTU22, for 4 yards to the TTU18 (#24 M.Esquerra) · final Oregon State 24, Texas Tech 35