Week 2 report · Sat, Sep 12 · 2026 Week 2
UCF
4–4 · Ours #62 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
7–12FinalWe had UCF 20 – PITT 33
Pittsburgh
5–3 · Ours #28 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.PITT 79%PITT won
PITT 79%PITT wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at PITT −8.PITT −7oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. −13.1 · UCF covered by 2
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 53.2.55.5final 19 · under by 36.5
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.PITT −7.5Llost 0.5 to the close
PITT −7.5Llost 0.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Alonza Barnett III20/31 · 186 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.1128th pct
- Comp %
- 64.5
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Mason Heintschel18/29 · 212 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.0948th pct
- Comp %
- 62.1
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| UCFoffense | Played like PITT +4.9Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defensePittsburgh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14th | 30.0%▼10.9 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 30.0%▲8.2 | 87th |
| 15th | −0.20▼0.26 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.20▲0.27 | 85th |
| 26th | −0.18▼0.24 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.18▲0.39 | 74th |
| 14th | −0.24▼0.28 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.24▲0.13 | 86th |
| 79th | 0▲0.7 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.7 | 21st |
| Pittsburghoffense | defenseUCF | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31st | 36.6%▼7.1 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 36.6%▲7.9 | 69th |
| 21st | −0.15▼0.25 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.15▲0.29 | 79th |
| 52nd | +0.09 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.09▲0.20 | 48th |
| 9th | −0.33▼0.39 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.33▲0.32 | 91st |
| 79th | 0▲1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.5 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| UCFUCF | PittsburghPITT | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2312th | Own 3479th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | 0.0 pts39th | +0.3 pts56th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 5030th | 7183rd |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −3.838th | +3.863rd |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 127th | 251st |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −1.4 pts3rd | +0.1 pts61st |
| SafetiesSafeties scored. | 049th | 199th |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. PITT +9.6: field position +3.7, kicking +0.2, 4th downs +1.9, penalty first downs +0.8, safeties +2.9. | −9.613th | +9.687th |
Season so far
UCF4–4 · 25th-hardest schedule
Wvs Bethune-Cookman73–6covered −43
Lat Pittsburgh7–12covered +7
at Pittsburgh7–12covered +7W
vs Georgia State44–30missed −17.5
vs Georgia State44–30missed −17.5W
vs TCU21–13covered +3.5
vs TCU21–13covered +3.5L
at Houston17–27covered +10.5
at Houston17–27covered +10.5L
at Oklahoma State28–42missed +10
at Oklahoma State28–42missed +10W
vs BYU39–31covered +7.5
vs BYU39–31covered +7.5L
vs Baylor9–41missed +2.5
vs Baylor9–41missed +2.5Pittsburgh5–3 · 44th-hardest schedule
W
vs Miami (OH)59–14covered −16.5
vs Miami (OH)59–14covered −16.5Wvs UCF12–7missed −7
vs UCF12–7missed −7W
vs Syracuse27–13covered −10.5
vs Syracuse27–13covered −10.5Wvs Bucknell59–0covered −54.5
W
at Virginia Tech35–33covered +2
at Virginia Tech35–33covered +2L
vs North Carolina17–21missed −3.5
vs North Carolina17–21missed −3.5L
at Boston College21–27missed −6.5
at Boston College21–27missed −6.5L
at Miami23–52missed +20.5
at Miami23–52missed +20.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 12, 3:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is