Week 2 report · Fri, Sep 11 · 2026 Week 2
Rutgers
2–6 · Ours #129 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.
21–28FinalWe had RUTG 29 – BC 32
Boston College
4–4 · Ours #103 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.BC 57%BC won
BC 57%BC 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 BC −3.5.BC −3oursOur 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. −3 · BC covered by 4
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 60.3.53.5final 49 · under by 4.5
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.RUTG +3.5Lbeat the close by 0.5
RUTG +3.5Lbeat the close by 0.5Quarterbacksthis game
AJ Surace18/27 · 230 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.
- +0.1354th pct
- Comp %
- 66.7
- TD
- 3
- Turnovers
- 44 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 3
Mason McKenzie18/29 · 252 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.
- −0.0634th pct
- Comp %
- 62.1
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 22 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Rutgersoffense | Played like BC +3.0Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseBoston College | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47th | 41.2%▲0.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 41.2%▲0.3 | 53rd |
| 35th | −0.05▼0.06 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.05▲0.03 | 65th |
| 57th | +0.13▲0.20 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.13▼0.17 | 43rd |
| 19th | −0.20▼0.26 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.20▲0.18 | 81st |
| 1st | 4▼2.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 4▲3.2 | 99th |
| Boston Collegeoffense | defenseRutgers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31st | 36.7%▼5.8 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 36.7%▲15.2 | 69th |
| 45th | +0.02▼0.07 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.02▲0.24 | 55th |
| 38th | −0.06▲0.01 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.06▲0.36 | 63rd |
| 58th | +0.10▼0.13 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.10▲0.14 | 42nd |
| 15th | 2▼1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.8 | 85th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| RutgersRUTG | Boston CollegeBC | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3790th | Own 2526th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | 0.0 pts39th | +1.5 pts86th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 6876th | 6055th |
| 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. | −4.237th | +4.264th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 127th | 127th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | +0.1 pts60th | +0.5 pts78th |
| 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. BC +0.1: turnovers +2.6, field position −4.1, kicking +1.0, 4th downs +0.6. | −0.149th | +0.151st |
Season so far
Rutgers2–6 · 40th-hardest schedule
L
vs Massachusetts21–37missed −29
vs Massachusetts21–37missed −29Lat Boston College21–28missed +3
at Boston College21–28missed +3L
vs USC35–42covered +21
vs USC35–42covered +21Wvs Howard58–7covered −42
L
vs Indiana15–47missed +24.5QB change mid-game
vs Indiana15–47missed +24.5QB change mid-gameW
at Maryland37–30covered +6
at Maryland37–30covered +6L
at Northwestern14–42missed +14.5
at Northwestern14–42missed +14.5L
vs Michigan21–28covered +16.5
vs Michigan21–28covered +16.5Boston College4–4 · 52nd-hardest schedule
L
at Cincinnati15–34missed +7
at Cincinnati15–34missed +7Wvs Rutgers28–21covered −3
vs Rutgers28–21covered −3Wvs Maine22–16missed −37.5
L
vs Virginia Tech14–21covered +14.5
vs Virginia Tech14–21covered +14.5L
at SMU16–25covered +21.5
at SMU16–25covered +21.5W
vs Pittsburgh27–21covered +6.5
vs Pittsburgh27–21covered +6.5W
at Georgia Tech49–27covered +6.5
at Georgia Tech49–27covered +6.5L
at Duke2–47missed +7
at Duke2–47missed +7Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 11, 6:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is