BOK ANALYTICS

MATCHUP PROJECTION

Week 2 · Ohio State at Texas · September 12, 2026

TEXAS
1-0
WIN PROBABILITY
54%
TEXAS
Texas 54% Ohio State 46%
PROJECTED SCORE
TEXAS 27 — 26 OHIO STATE
OHIO STATE
1-0
MARKET EDGE
MARKET
TEXAS -1.5
BOK MODEL
TEXAS -1.4
BOK EDGE
OSU +0.1
EARLY-SEASON SAMPLE: Matchup analytics below reflect one game of 2026 data and should be treated as directional rather than predictive.
MATCHUP ANALYTICS
Combined offense + defense national ranks · 2026 data · Tap or hover for unit ranks
TEXAS
TEAM RATING
OHIO STATE
58 58 NATIONALLY Offense: 36 · Defense: 85
Efficiency EFFICIENCY Predicted Points Added per play, combining a team’s offensive production and defensive prevention. Better overall performance produces a better national ranking.
3 3 NATIONALLY Offense: 7 · Defense: 20
76 76 NATIONALLY Offense: 49 · Defense: 98
Success Rate SUCCESS RATE How consistently a team stays on schedule by producing successful plays and preventing them on defense.
11 11 NATIONALLY Offense: 15 · Defense: 19
48 48 NATIONALLY Offense: 8 · Defense: 102
Passing PPA PASSING PPA Expected points value generated per pass play, combined with how well the defense limits passing value.
3 3 NATIONALLY Offense: 14 · Defense: 14
60 60 NATIONALLY Offense: 11 · Defense: 117
Pass Success PASS SUCCESS How consistently the offense produces successful pass plays and the defense prevents them.
4 4 NATIONALLY Offense: 4 · Defense: 13
70 70 NATIONALLY Offense: 91 · Defense: 45
Rushing PPA RUSHING PPA Expected points value generated per rush, combined with how well the defense limits rushing value.
33 33 NATIONALLY Offense: 43 · Defense: 48
100 100 NATIONALLY Offense: 111 · Defense: 66
Rush Success RUSH SUCCESS How consistently the offense produces successful runs and the defense prevents them.
44 44 NATIONALLY Offense: 84 · Defense: 26
17 17 NATIONALLY Offense: 20 · Defense: 32
Finishing Drives FINISHING DRIVES How effectively a team turns scoring opportunities into points while preventing opponents from doing the same.
2 2 NATIONALLY Offense: 1 · Defense: 20
BOK TAKEAWAY
TOSS-UP

The Model projects Texas by 1.4 points, virtually identical to the market line of Texas -1.5. The model therefore sees no meaningful ATS edge in either direction. Texas owns home-field advantage, but Ohio State enters Austin after an exceptionally efficient offensive performance in Week 1. With only one game of 2026 data available, the matchup analytics remain highly volatile.

The BOK Model combines efficiency ratings and roster-talent among other factors, with a fixed home-field adjustment.
BOK ANALYTICS

SEC EFFICIENCY

SEC teams by national FBS efficiency after Week 6

Offensive Efficiency
SEC Offense Rank
National Offense Rank
Defensive Efficiency
SEC Defense Rank
National Defense Rank
Efficiency scores convert Punt & Rally national points-per-play rankings into FBS percentiles. 50 represents the national FBS midpoint.
BOK ANALYTICS

POSTGAME ANALYTICS

September 19, 2026

TEXAS
30
FINAL
UTSA
6
HOW TEXAS WON
Key analytical battles
TEXAS
METRIC
UTSA
43.6%
Success Rate
23.0%
−0.20
PPA / Play
−0.22
41.2%
Third Down
9.1%
3.75
Points / Opportunity
1.48
12.5%
Havoc Rate
9.3%
0
Turnovers
1
29.4
Avg. Starting Field Position
35.8
KEY BATTLES WON
0 — 0
Texas UTSA
THE DIFFERENCE
DEFENSE SET THE TONE

Texas didn't deliver the offensive fireworks many expected, but the Longhorn defense made sure there was never much doubt about the outcome. UTSA managed just a 23.0% success rate, converted only 9.1% of its third downs, and failed to find the end zone. The Longhorns also won the turnover battle and generated more havoc, while their offense produced 3.75 points per scoring opportunity compared to UTSA's 1.48. It wasn't always pretty offensively, but Texas controlled the game where it mattered most. Three games, three wins, and another strong showing from Muschamp's defense.

Data: Punt & Rally and Texas Athletics.
BOK ANALYTICS

ADVANCED POWER RATINGS

70% performance · 30% roster talent · Updated through Week 6

RK TEAM OFF DEF PERF TALENT BOK POWER
1 Miami 100.0 97.1 98.5 92.0 96.6
2 Ohio State 93.4 92.7 93.1 96.4 94.1
3 Notre Dame 97.8 87.6 92.7 97.1 94.0
4 Georgia 99.3 75.2 87.2 99.3 90.8
5 Utah 96.4 92.0 94.2 67.2 86.1
6 BYU 87.6 86.9 87.2 81.8 85.6
7 Indiana 97.1 97.8 97.4 57.7 85.5
8 Oregon 92.7 65.7 79.2 98.5 85.0
9 Alabama 95.6 61.3 78.5 97.8 84.3
10 Texas Tech 65.0 95.6 80.3 85.4 81.8
11 Iowa 79.6 83.9 81.8 78.1 80.7
12 New Mexico 98.5 94.2 96.4 40.1 79.5
13 Tennessee 62.0 85.4 73.7 92.7 79.4
14 Nebraska 75.9 78.1 77.0 84.7 79.3
15 UCLA 83.9 83.2 83.6 68.6 79.1
16 Wisconsin 68.6 89.8 79.2 77.4 78.6
17 LSU 91.2 49.6 70.4 94.9 77.8
18 Missouri 69.3 80.3 74.8 83.9 77.6
19 Northwestern 83.2 93.4 88.3 51.1 77.2
20 Texas 46.7 84.7 65.7 100.0 76.0
21 James Madison 89.8 96.4 93.1 35.8 75.9
22 Pittsburgh 67.9 88.3 78.1 67.9 75.0
23 Houston 81.0 67.9 74.5 70.1 73.1
24 Arizona 80.3 79.6 79.9 52.6 71.7
25 Penn State 63.5 67.2 65.3 86.1 71.6
UPDATED THROUGH WEEK 6 70% PERFORMANCE · 30% TALENT DATA: PUNT & RALLY
BOK ANALYTICS
POSTGAME
TEXAS
20
FINAL
17
TENNESSEE
HOW TEXAS WON
TEXAS
METRIC
TENNESSEE
33.9%
SUCCESS RATE
29.9%
−0.14
PPA / PLAY
−0.17
25.0%
THIRD DOWN
25.0%
4.00
POINTS / OPPORTUNITY
3.33
23.4%
HAVOC RATE
25.4%
2
TURNOVERS
0
32.8
AVG. STARTING FIELD POSITION
22.6
KEY BATTLES WON
4-2
SURVIVED NEYLAND
Data: CollegeFootballData.com / Texas Athletics
BURNT ORANGE KOOLAID

BOK POWER RATINGS

WEEK 6 · TOP 25
1 Miami
2 Ohio State
3 Notre Dame
4 Georgia
5 Utah
6 BYU
7 Indiana
8 Oregon
9 Alabama
10 Texas Tech
11 Iowa
12 New Mexico
13 Tennessee
14 Nebraska
15 UCLA
16 Wisconsin
17 LSU
18 Missouri
19 Northwestern
20 Texas
21 James Madison
22 Pittsburgh
23 Houston
24 Arizona
25 Penn State
burntorangekoolaid.com