Next up projections
vs Wisconsin
Week 7 · Fri Oct 16, 11:00 PM CT / 12:00 AM ET · Rose Bowl (Pasadena) · Wisconsin (FBS, Big Ten)
Our call: UCLA by 6.1Lean
All three models favor UCLA. The line, shown for comparison only, has UCLA 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 ›
Regression watch: Undersold last game: the play ran 21 points ahead of the 2-point win. In a 2022–25 study, teams undersold by more than 7 beat their season form by about 1.7 points the next game. More ›
Schedule: Played the 11th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +4.4); 63rd-toughest remaining (+2.5). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 at California (-0.6)
- Week 2 vs San Diego State (-4.9)
- Week 3 vs Purdue (+2.0)
- Week 4 at Maryland (+4.9)
- Week 6 at Oregon (+20.4)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 vs Wisconsin (+5.3)
- Week 8 vs Michigan State (-0.6)
- Week 9 vs Nevada (-14.4)
- Week 10 at Minnesota (+0.9)
- Week 11 vs Illinois (-0.2)
- Week 12 at Michigan (+11.8)
- Week 13 vs USC (+14.8)
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: UCLA leads 7–4 · last: Wisconsin 21–20, 2000 · Wisconsin has won 3 straight
Series history 11 meetings since 1938
- All-time: UCLA leads 7–4 (11 meetings since 1938)
- Last meeting: Wisconsin 21–20, 2000, neutral site
- Streak: Wisconsin has won 3 straight
- At Rose Bowl: first meeting at Rose Bowl
- Biggest margins: UCLA 35–0 (1980) · Wisconsin 14–7 (1938)
- Since 2000: Wisconsin leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Wisconsin 21–20 | neutral site |
| Rating | UCLA | Wisconsin |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +15.3 #18 | +10.5 #34 |
| Elo | 1673 | 1673 |
Projected margin for UCLA · 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 UCLA'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 (UCLA); 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 · UCLA 5 games, Wisconsin 5 games
Edge: UCLA wins 3 of 5
UCLA moves the ball better, stops plays better and is more disruptive. Wisconsin has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays.
-
47%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 38%
-
33%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 35%
-
21%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 16%
-
1.23 Big playson offense ✓1.53
-
1.24 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.00
Run game, head to head · season to date
UCLA's runs work 52% of the time; Wisconsin's run defense allows 37%. Wisconsin's runs work 34% of the time; UCLA's run defense allows 35%.
More numbers
| Measure | UCLA | Wisconsin | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 46.8% | 38.4% | UCLA |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.23 | 1.53 | Wisconsin |
| Def. success rate allowed | 33.4% | 35.0% | UCLA |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.24 | 1.00 | Wisconsin |
| Havoc created | 21.1% | 15.7% | UCLA |
- Run game, success rate: UCLA offense 52.5% · Wisconsin defense allows 37.3% · edge: UCLA
- Run game, success rate: Wisconsin offense 34.0% · UCLA defense allows 34.7% · edge: UCLA
- Run game, PPA per play: UCLA offense +0.28 · Wisconsin defense allows +0.04 · edge: UCLA
- Run game, PPA per play: Wisconsin offense +0.22 · UCLA defense allows -0.24 · edge: UCLA
- 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 UCLA's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›
-
Mikey Matthews WRinjuryOutfootNoted Sat Oct 10, 12:30 PM CT.Big Ten availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 12:30 PM CT / 1:30 PM ET, for UCLA at Oregon, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Matthews will miss the rest of the season after foot surgery following an injury suffered against San Diego State.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 34
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, 7:55 PM CT.
-
No. 12 UCLA Football Hosts Wisconsin at Rose Bowl Saturday
Kickoff between the Bruins (5-0, 3-0 Big Ten) and Badgers (4-1, 2-0 Big Ten) is scheduled for 4:36 p.m. PT.
- Bruin Insider Show - Jalen Woods (Oct. 13, 2026)
- Football Media Availability - Coach Chesney
-
Knight Named Paul Hornung Award National Player of the Week For Third Time This Season
Knight had 130 all-purpose yards and two touchdowns to lead UCLA's offense in a 17-15 win over Oregon on Saturday
- Bob Chesney on who will replace Nico Iamaleava: 'Ty Dieffenbach has earned the right to be out there'
- UCLA Football Media Availability - Landon Ellis (Oct. 12, 2026)
- UCLA linebacker Jalen Woods has been named the Big Ten Defensive Player of the week.
-
Woods Named Big Ten Defensive Player of the Week
Woods had a team-high nine tackles and 2.0 TFLs in the Bruins' historic win at Oregon on Saturday
-
UCLA QB Nico Iamaleava expected to miss rest of season
UCLA quarterback Nico Iamaleava is expected to miss the rest of the season.
-
The Bruins will kick off against Michigan State at either 12:00pm or 12:30pm on October 24.
Official kickoff time and network will be announced following the games on October 17.
-
Big Ten issues statement on officiating near the end of UCLA-Oregon game
The conference commented on the spotting of Oregon's two-point conversion try.
-
The Big Ten has made an officiating mistake for the second time this season.
The most recent one benefited UCLA.
- UCLA's top-15 win over Oregon moved the Bruins up to No. 12 and knocked the Ducks out of the AP Top 25 poll:
-
First-year head coaches post strong records after Week 6
Napier, Chesney and Scalley stay undefeated while Stein reaches 5-1 after Week 6.
-
Yahoo Sports new Top 10 features the Bruins after upsets
Yahoo Sports Top 10 now includes UCLA Bruins following a tumultuous Saturday.
-
ESPN Analytics strength of record matches Kentucky and UCLA
ESPN Analytics SOR this morning aligns with Kentucky and UCLA.
-
Week 6 takeaways note Georgia win and UCLA as contender
Takeaways say Kirby Smart beat Alabama, UCLA is CFP-bound and Texas overrated.
-
Postgame Quotes - UCLA at Oregon
Read what the Coach Chesney and the players said after No. 21 UCLA's 17-15 victory over No. 13 Oregon.
- Football Postgame - Players at Oregon
- Football Postgame - Coach Chesney at Oregon
-
UCLA gets first win at Oregon in 22 years
UCLA won at Oregon for the first time in 22 years as Bob Chesney starts 5-0.
-
Postgame Notes - UCLA at Oregon
The Bruins recovered five fumbles, their most in a game since 1998 vs. USC.
-
Oregon benches quarterback Dylan Raiola against UCLA
Oregon benched Dylan Raiola after three turnovers in the game versus UCLA.
-
UCLA quarterback Nico Iamaleava doubtful to return versus Oregon
UCLA QB Nico Iamaleava left with an injury and did not return after halftime.
- Football Media Availability - Colin Hitschler
- Football Media Availability - Dean Kennedy
-
Oregon star QB Dante Moore unlikely to play vs UCLA
Oregon QB Dante Moore is currently considered unlikely to play against UCLA.
-
UCLA football practice observations: Sahir West makes his presence felt
Sahir West made his presence felt during UCLA football practice observations.
- Bruin Insider Show - Hall Schmidt
- Football Media Availability - Coach Chesney
-
No. 21-Ranked Bruins Take Their 4-0 Start to No. 13 Oregon
Feeling good about UCLA's first national ranking since 2023 lasted about as long inside the Bruins' football building as it took Bob Chesney to put it on a…
-
UCLA To Honor Los Angeles Sports Broadcasting Legend Jim Hill at Rose Bowl
Longtime Los Angeles broadcaster to be recognized at the UCLA vs. USC football game on Nov.
-
James Named UCLA Student-Athlete of the Week
UCLA's weekly award is presented by Champion of Westwood.
-
Omosigho Added to Bednarik Award Watch List
Omosigho ranks among the national leaders in tackles, sacks, and forced fumbles through UCLA's first four games of 2026.
3 entries about games now final not shown.
Score and result
UCLA 17, Oregon 15W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -9.9 ✗ · Our model -17.5 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -12.5 · actual +2 · Closest: Elo
UCLA was as low as 28% and won
- Q4 2:13 · 1st & 10 · 45% → 87%(02:13) Shotgun #3 W.Knight rush right for 9 yards gain to the UCL44 (#3 K.Perich; #12 P.Woodyard)
- Q4 2:26 · 2nd & 10 · 86% → 45%(02:26) Shotgun #12 B.Thomas pass complete short middle to #7 E.Stewart caught at UCL42, for 44 yards to the UCL00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 02:16, 1ST DOWN #12 B.Thomas rush attempt failed PENALTY UCL Face Mask (#10 S.Omosigho) 2 yards from UCL03 to UCL01. NO PLAY #0 J.Davison rush attempt failed
- Q1 7:58 · 1st & 1 · 54% → 29%(07:58) #0 J.Davison rush left for 1 yard gain to the UCL00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 07:57 #12 B.Thomas rush attempt failed
Away at Autzen Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · vs Oregon (FBS, Big Ten)
Opponent for every game-level number: Oregon (FBS, Big Ten).
- By quarter: UCLA 3-7-0-7 · Oregon 6-0-0-9
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: UCLA #22, Oregon #13 · AP: UCLA #21, Oregon #13
- Pregame Elo: UCLA 1660, Oregon 1844
- Postgame win probability: 87.9%
Verdict
The scoreboard undersold UCLA: the +2 margin ran 21 points behind the +23 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.12 vs -0.51, success rate 35% vs 29%) (UCLA turned it over 3 times).
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: UCLA won 4 of 4
UCLA moved the ball better, got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.
-
35%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 29%
-
-0.12✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.51
-
1.09✓ Big playssize of the good plays 0.62
-
26%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 17%
More numbers
UCLA ran 71 plays, Oregon 62. Each number is that team's offense; Oregon's column is also what UCLA's defense allowed.
| Measure | UCLA | Oregon | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | -0.12 | -0.51 | UCLA |
| Total PPA | -8.6 | -31.9 | UCLA |
| Success rate | 35.2% | 29.0% | UCLA |
| Explosiveness | 1.09 | 0.62 | UCLA |
| Havoc created | 26.2% | 17.1% | UCLA |
- 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
UCLA 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ty Dieffenbach QB | 29% | +2.8 | +0.40 |
| Nico Iamaleava QB | 71% | -0.3 | -0.02 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wayne Knight RB | 49% | +0.9 | +0.04 |
| Anthony Woods RB | 20% | -1.3 | -0.14 |
| Jaivian Thomas RB | 9% | -1.5 | -0.38 |
| Ty Dieffenbach QB | 7% | -2.7 | -0.90 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semaj Morgan WR | 21% | +4.5 | +0.90 |
| Aidan Mizell WR | 8% | +3.0 | +1.51 |
| Wayne Knight RB | 17% | +1.5 | +0.38 |
| Brayden Loftin TE | 4% | +0.8 | +0.80 |
By play type
| Measure | UCLA | Oregon | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.27 | -0.84 | UCLA |
| Rushing success | 31.1% | 35.7% | Oregon |
| Passing PPA | +0.10 | -0.12 | UCLA |
| Passing success | 41.7% | 25.0% | UCLA |
| Standard downs PPA | -0.24 | -0.66 | UCLA |
| Standard downs success | 38.2% | 41.5% | Oregon |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.27 | -0.23 | UCLA |
| Passing downs success | 25.0% | 4.8% | UCLA |
Havoc detail — UCLA defense: TFL 5, sacks 0, takeaways 5, breakups 6 on 61 snaps. Oregon defense: TFL 4, sacks 2, takeaways 3, breakups 3 on 70 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 0.49 points a play (UCLA +0.64 in the first half, +0.15 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| UCLA | Oregon | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | -0.13 | -0.15 | -0.77 | -0.30 |
| Success rate | 33% | 37% | 14% | 42% |
| Plays | 39 | 30 | 28 | 33 |
Recruiting
| Measure | UCLA | Oregon |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 62 | 3 |
| 2026 class points | 196.57 | 303.22 |
| Talent composite | 774.5 #25 of 138 |
984.3 #3 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 43 in, 29 out
Arrivals (43)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aidan Mizell WR | Florida | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Sammy Omosigho LB | Oklahoma | 4 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Ryan McCulloch EDGE | California | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Dante Lovett CB | Virginia Tech | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| JD Rayner OT | James Madison | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Ta'Shawn James S | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Hall Schmidt OT | Boise State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Riley Robell IOL | James Madison | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Aiden Gobaira EDGE | James Madison | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Dylan Lee RB | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
+33 more not shown (43 total).
Departures (29)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadyn Marshall WR | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Dec 25, 2025 |
| Jamier Johnson CB | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Jan 17, 2026 |
| Cole Martin S | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 2, 2025 |
| Ezavier Staples WR | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Jaedon Wilson WR | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Keanu Williams DL | Penn State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Luke Duncan QB | Nevada | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Anthony Jones EDGE | Nebraska | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Ben Perry LB | Louisville | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Henry Hasselbeck QB | App State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
+19 more not shown (29 total).
2026 commits · 18
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kenneth Moore III WR | Stockton, CA | 4 | 0.8933 |
| Jonah Smith WR | Rancho Santa Margarita, CA | 4 | 0.8930 |
| Quinn Buckey OT | Bakersfield, CA | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Camden Jensen OT | Littleton, CO | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Cooper Javorsky IOL | San Juan Capistrano, CA | 3 | 0.8811 |
| James Moffat DL | Encino, CA | 3 | 0.8744 |
| Jayden Fox RB | Englewood, CO | 3 | 0.8744 |
| DJ Bordeaux QB | Parker, CO | 3 | 0.8733 |
| Marcus Almada DL | Marion, MA | 3 | 0.8722 |
| Logan Hirou S | Rancho Santa Margarita, CA | 3 | 0.8667 |
| CJ Lavender S | Santa Ana, CA | 3 | 0.8656 |
| Malaki Soliai-Tui LB | Kahuku, HI | 3 | 0.8633 |
| Matthew Muasau LB | Bellflower, CA | 3 | 0.8611 |
| Major Pride WR | Torrance, CA | 3 | 0.8589 |
| Michael Price IOL | Huntsville, AL | 3 | 0.8533 |
+3 more not shown (18 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for UCLA in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 57.0% | 108.3 | 63.5% |
| Passing | 54.7% | 17.5 | 90.7% |
| Receiving | 33.8% | 29.3 | 27.4% |
| Rushing | 86.1% | 61.5 | 69.0% |
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.