Next up projections
vs Arizona State
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Jones AT&T Stadium (Lubbock) · Arizona State (FBS, Big 12)
Our call: Texas Tech by 18.9Strong
All three models favor Texas Tech. The line, shown for comparison only, has Texas Tech by 12.5.
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: Flattered last game: the 22-point win ran 22 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 85th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -6.1); 61st-toughest remaining (+2.9). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 vs Abilene Christian (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
- Week 2 at Oregon State (+4.1)
- Week 3 vs Houston (+12.1)
- Week 4 vs Sam Houston (-12.2)
- Week 5 at Colorado (-1.5)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 vs Arizona State (+0.7)
- Week 8 at Cincinnati (+0.5)
- Week 9 vs Arizona (+9.3)
- Week 10 vs West Virginia (-2.6)
- Week 11 at Oklahoma State (-1.0)
- Week 12 at Baylor (+6.7)
- Week 13 vs TCU (+6.8)
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: tied 3–3 · last: Arizona State 26–22, 2025
Series history 6 meetings since 1999
- All-time: tied 3–3 (6 meetings since 1999)
- Last meeting: Arizona State 26–22, 2025, Mountain America Stadium
- Streak: none
- At Jones AT&T Stadium: Texas Tech leads 2–0 (2 meetings)
- Biggest margins: Texas Tech 37–23 (2013) · Arizona State 31–13 (1999)
- Since 2000: Texas Tech leads 3–2 (5 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Arizona State 26–22 | Mountain America Stadium |
| 2024 | Texas Tech 30–22 | Jones AT&T Stadium |
| 2017 | Texas Tech 52–45 | Jones AT&T Stadium |
| 2016 | Arizona State 68–55 | Mountain America Stadium |
| 2013 | Texas Tech 37–23 | neutral site |
| Rating | Texas Tech | Arizona State |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +21.6 #10 | +3.6 #59 |
| Elo | 1862 | 1464 |
Projected margin for Texas Tech · 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 Texas Tech'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 (Texas Tech); 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 · Texas Tech 5 games, Arizona State 5 games
Edge: Texas Tech wins 4 of 5
Texas Tech moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays. Arizona State has the edge on big plays.
-
47%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 45%
-
37%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 40%
-
17%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 15%
-
1.14 Big playson offense ✓1.19
-
1.29✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.36
Run game, head to head · season to date
Texas Tech's runs work 50% of the time; Arizona State's run defense allows 40%. Arizona State's runs work 45% of the time; Texas Tech's run defense allows 33%.
More numbers
| Measure | Texas Tech | Arizona State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 46.7% | 44.9% | Texas Tech |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.14 | 1.19 | Arizona State |
| Def. success rate allowed | 37.2% | 39.5% | Texas Tech |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.29 | 1.36 | Texas Tech |
| Havoc created | 16.7% | 14.7% | Texas Tech |
- Run game, success rate: Texas Tech offense 49.7% · Arizona State defense allows 40.4% · edge: Texas Tech
- Run game, success rate: Arizona State offense 44.9% · Texas Tech defense allows 33.1% · edge: Texas Tech
- Run game, PPA per play: Texas Tech offense +0.18 · Arizona State defense allows +0.08 · edge: Texas Tech
- Run game, PPA per play: Arizona State offense +0.02 · Texas Tech defense allows -0.11 · edge: Texas Tech
- 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 AI-assisted 1
Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for Texas Tech's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›
-
Cameron Dickey RBinjuryOuthigh-ankle sprainNoted Wed Oct 7, 6:32 AM CT, for the game vs Arizona State, Sat Oct 17.Coach Joey McGuire said he anticipates Cam Dickey will miss through the Cincinnati game after a high-ankle sprain suffered against Colorado.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 17
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 Mon Oct 12, 7:30 PM CT.
-
No. 10 Texas Tech hosts Arizona State for Homecoming
Fresh off its open date, Texas Tech enters Saturday's game riding an 11-game home winning streak when it hosts Arizona State in front of a sold-out Galaxy…
-
Red Raiders enter top 10 of both polls Sunday
Texas Tech will enter its Homecoming game with Arizona State ranked in the top 10 after the Red Raiders stayed at No. 9 in the U.S. LBM coaches poll Sunday and…
-
McGuire discusses 5-0 start during open week media session
Joey McGuire met with the media Tuesday following the Red Raiders' first practice of its open week, discussing Texas Tech's 5-0 start to the season and where…
-
Ohio State Iowa game led Week 5 with six million viewers
Ohio State versus Iowa drew six million viewers topping Week 5 Nielsen ratings.
-
What's Next With Joey McGuire Podcast: Episode 46
In this week's episode, Joey McGuire and Robert Giovannetti break down Texas Tech's win at Colorado, including what John Curry and the defense were told prior…
-
Pollock tabbed Thorpe National Defensive Back of the Week
Texas Tech senior cornerback Brice Pollock added another honor Tuesday for his performance at Colorado as he was named the Thorpe Award National Defensive Back…
-
Karoll named Ray Guy Award Punter of the Week
Karoll adds national punter of the week to his resume after earning his third Big 12 Special Teams Player of the Week honor Monday
-
The Ride: Inside the Colorado Win
The Red Raiders are officially 5-0 after another strong second half to take down Colorado.
-
Texas Tech, Arizona State set for afternoon kick on FOX
Texas Tech will return to Galaxy Stadium for a 2:30 p.m. CT kick against Arizona State on Oct.
-
Texas Tech RB Cameron Dickey suffered high ankle sprain at Colorado
Cameron Dickey has a high ankle sprain that is not season-ending according to sources.
-
Red Raiders move up one spot in polls Sunday
Texas Tech will enter its lone open date on the 2026 schedule ranked in the top 11 of both major polls after the Red Raiders moved up Sunday to No. 9 in the…
-
Postgame Notes: Texas Tech at Colorado
Texas Tech Football Postgame Notes: at Colorado
-
Pollock featured on FOX's Big Noon Kickoff
Texas Tech cornerback Brice Pollock was featured on FOX's Big Noon Kickoff, taking viewers inside the state-of-the-art Womble Football Center in an exclusive…
-
Thomas Castellanos has new eligibility hearing after Kentucky decision
Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos has a new hearing scheduled after his injunction was dissolved.
-
The Brand: Episode One - A New Season
In the season premiere of The Brand, a 4-0 start puts Texas Tech's season in the spotlight as the Red Raiders embrace the outside doubt and begin to face the…
-
Colorado will start quarterback Isaac Wilson against Texas Tech
Colorado is switching QBs and will start Isaac Wilson over Julian Lewis versus Texas Tech.
-
Guyton tabbed the Shaun Alexander Player of the Week
Texas Tech freshman outside linebacker LaDamion Guyton was named Monday the Shaun Alexander Player of the Week, which recognizes the top performance by a…
2 entries about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Texas Tech 29, Colorado 7W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ +21.0 ✓ · Elo +18.8 ✓ · Our model +17.5 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +14.5 · actual +22 · Closest: SP+
Texas Tech was as low as 20% and won
- Q4 0:08 · 1st & 10 · 100% → 53%(00:08) No Huddle-Shotgun #28 A.Rowden rush middle for 8 yards gain to the TTU12 (#99 D.Manuel; #17 L.Lefau)
- Q3 3:07 · 2nd & 11 · 51% → 70%(03:07) Shotgun #15 W.Hammond pass complete short right to #7 T.Carter Jr. caught at COLO00, for 11 yards to the COLO00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 03:01. The previous play is under automatic review - "Pass completion". CALL UPHELD #15 W.Hammond pass attempt failed
- Q4 7:15 · 1st & 10 · 85% → 100%(07:15) Shotgun #16 I.Wilson pass intercepted by #6 J.Curry at COLO00, End Of Play TOUCHDOWN, clock 07:10 #48 S.Harrington kick attempt good (H: #49 W.Karoll, LS: #89 J.Llewellyn)
Away at Folsom Field · Sat Oct 3, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · vs Colorado (FBS, Big 12)
Opponent for every game-level number: Colorado (FBS, Big 12).
- By quarter: Texas Tech 3-0-9-17 · Colorado 7-0-0-0
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: Texas Tech #9 · AP: Texas Tech #11
- Pregame Elo: Texas Tech 1860, Colorado 1327
- Postgame win probability: 65.0%
Verdict
The scoreboard flattered Texas Tech: the +22 margin ran 22 points ahead of the -0 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.22 vs -0.18, success rate 30% vs 40%) (Colorado turned it over 4 times).
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Colorado won 3 of 4
Colorado moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Texas Tech hit the bigger plays.
-
30% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓40%
-
-0.22 Points per playwhat a play was worth ✓-0.18
-
1.11✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.05
-
12% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓24%
More numbers
Texas Tech ran 64 plays, Colorado 80. Each number is that team's offense; Colorado's column is also what Texas Tech's defense allowed.
| Measure | Texas Tech | Colorado | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | -0.22 | -0.18 | Colorado |
| Total PPA | -14.4 | -14.4 | Colorado |
| Success rate | 29.7% | 40.0% | Colorado |
| Explosiveness | 1.11 | 1.05 | Texas Tech |
| Havoc created | 12.5% | 24.2% | Colorado |
- 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
Texas Tech 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will Hammond QB | 93% | -4.5 | -0.17 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will Hammond QB | 9% | +2.8 | +0.95 |
| Ashton Rowden RB | 3% | +0.5 | +0.49 |
| Cameron Dickey RB | 12% | +0.3 | +0.07 |
| Quinten Joyner RB | 26% | -2.4 | -0.27 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micah Hudson WR | 7% | +1.0 | +0.50 |
| Terrance Carter TE | 32% | +1.0 | +0.11 |
| Coy Eakin WR | 7% | +0.9 | +0.45 |
| J'Koby Williams RB | 11% | +0.4 | +0.12 |
By play type
| Measure | Texas Tech | Colorado | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.29 | -0.51 | Texas Tech |
| Rushing success | 35.3% | 25.8% | Texas Tech |
| Passing PPA | -0.12 | +0.18 | Colorado |
| Passing success | 25.0% | 52.2% | Colorado |
| Standard downs PPA | -0.31 | -0.07 | Colorado |
| Standard downs success | 34.9% | 42.3% | Colorado |
| Passing downs PPA | -0.04 | -0.38 | Texas Tech |
| Passing downs success | 19.0% | 35.7% | Colorado |
Havoc detail — Texas Tech defense: TFL 3, sacks 1, takeaways 4, breakups 2 on 80 snaps. Colorado defense: TFL 9, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 4 on 62 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 0.70 points a play (Texas Tech -0.40 in the first half, +0.29 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| Texas Tech | Colorado | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | -0.29 | -0.13 | +0.11 | -0.43 |
| Success rate | 34% | 27% | 49% | 36% |
| Plays | 32 | 30 | 37 | 42 |
Recruiting
Texas Tech's 2026 class: #18 · 250.26 points.
| Measure | Texas Tech | Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 767.9 #29 of 138 |
731.6 #39 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 23 in, 21 out
Arrivals (23)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brendan Sorsby QB | Cincinnati | 5 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Mateen Ibirogba DL | Wake Forest | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Adam Trick EDGE | Miami (OH) | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Malcolm Simmons WR | Auburn | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Jordan Church IOL | Louisville | 4 | Immediate | Jan 15, 2026 |
| Amarie Fleming EDGE | Allen University | 3 | Immediate | Nov 19, 2025 |
| Austin Romaine LB | Kansas State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Jalen Jones WR | Alabama State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Donte Lee Jr. WR | Liberty | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Julien Laventure DL | Akron | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
+13 more not shown (23 total).
Departures (21)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Horne LB | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 25, 2025 |
| Kelby Valsin WR | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 26, 2025 |
| Maurion Horn CB | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| T.J. West WR | UTSA | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Dylan Spencer EDGE | UTSA | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Macho Stevenson CB | Tulane | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Braylon Rigsby DL | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Mitch Griffis QB | East Carolina | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Cheta Ofili EDGE | TCU | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Eddy Smith DL | UTSA | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
+11 more not shown (21 total).
2026 commits · 22
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| LaDamion Guyton EDGE | Savannah, GA | 5 | 0.9872 |
| Felix Ojo OT | Mansfield, TX | 4 | 0.9791 |
| Chase Campbell WR | Wolfforth, TX | 4 | 0.9560 |
| S'Vioarean Martin CB | Palestine, TX | 4 | 0.9441 |
| Bryce Gilmore OT | Prosper, TX | 4 | 0.9163 |
| Matt Ludwig TE | Billings, MT | 4 | 0.9118 |
| Kaegan Ash ATH | Mount Enterprise, TX | 4 | 0.9049 |
| Donovan Webb S | Frisco, TX | 4 | 0.8944 |
| Ashton Rowden RB | New Boston, TX | 4 | 0.8942 |
| Jerald Mays IOL | Pflugerville, TX | 3 | 0.8817 |
| Jacob Crow OT | Alcoa, TN | 3 | 0.8767 |
| Aaron Bradshaw S | Fort Worth, TX | 3 | 0.8756 |
| Cord Nolan LB | Bixby, OK | 3 | 0.8756 |
| Krush Johnson DL | Amarillo, TX | 3 | 0.8744 |
| Stephen Cannon QB | Savannah, GA | 3 | 0.8744 |
+7 more not shown (22 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Texas Tech in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 53.4% | 231.6 | 56.7% |
| Passing | 26.8% | 41.4 | 23.3% |
| Receiving | 57.0% | 118.1 | 53.2% |
| Rushing | 98.8% | 72.1 | 93.4% |
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.