Kansas 2-2
21.7
Utah 4-0
36.4The model makes this Utah -14.8. The market has it Utah -15.5, a gap of 0.7 points toward Kansas.
Tested against closing lines on 1,148 games, this model tracks the market rather than beating it. A large gap is a question worth asking, not a signal to follow.
Each bar is that input's contribution to the projected margin, in points, pointing toward the team it favours. They sum to 13.0 toward Utah, before calibration.
| Percentile, 0–100 | Kansas off | Utah off | Kansas def | Utah def |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Passing | 77 | 95 | 34 | 83 |
| Rushing | 92 | 91 | 91 | 53 |
| Pass cons. | 55 | 93 | 64 | 96 |
| Rush cons. | 91 | 88 | 91 | 67 |
| Pass rate | 15 | 54 | 87 | 36 |
| Pace | 39 | 21 | 53 | 98 |
Higher is better on both sides — defence is flipped so the shape reads the same way. Percentiles are taken from the opponent-adjusted ratings, so a number earned against a hard schedule ranks above the same number earned against a soft one.
| Per play, vs average | Kansas off | Utah off | Kansas def | Utah def |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass EPA / dropback | +0.257 | +0.425 | -0.030 | -0.155 |
| Rush EPA / carry | +0.213 | +0.203 | -0.249 | -0.093 |
| Pass success rate | +0.062 | +0.154 | -0.040 | -0.082 |
| Rush success rate | +0.125 | +0.112 | -0.128 | -0.075 |
| Pass rate | -0.074 | -0.008 | -0.015 | +0.021 |
| Plays per game | -1.6 | -2.2 | -4.2 | -7.9 |
Opponent adjusted and shrunk toward last season — after 4 and 4 games, a rating is still part last year. On defence, negative is good.
| Rating | Kansas | Utah | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elo, years of results | 1625 | 1918 | +293 |
Worth 8.7 points of this projection. Elo carries what three games of play-by-play can't: years of results, so a team that has been bad for a decade isn't rated average in September.
| vs Long Island University | 51–6 |
| vs Missouri | 21–38 |
| vs Arizona State | 17–24 |
| vs Middle Tennessee | 55–0 |
| vs Idaho | 66–14 |
| vs Arkansas | 43–10 |
| vs Utah State | 33–0 |
| at Iowa State | 31–17 |