Week 5 report · Sat, Oct 3 · 2026 Week 5
Boston College
4–4 · Ours #113 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.
16–25FinalWe had BC 17 – SMU 38
AP #21SMU
6–2 · Ours #34 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.SMU 90%SMU won
SMU 90%SMU 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 SMU −20.5.SMU −21.5oursOur 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. −20.8 · BC covered by 12.5
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 54.9.55.5final 41 · under by 14.5
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.BC +21Wlost 0.5 to the close
BC +21Wlost 0.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Mason McKenzie20/31 · 208 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.
- −0.2022nd pct
- Comp %
- 64.5
- TD
- 2
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 5
Kevin Jennings19/29 · 146 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.
- −0.0831st pct
- Comp %
- 65.5
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 2
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Boston Collegeoffense | Played like BC +1.4Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseSMU | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40th | 39.1%▼2.9 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 39.1%▲0.3 | 60th |
| 34th | −0.06▼0.16 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.06▲0.09 | 66th |
| 24th | −0.21▼0.17 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.21▲0.30 | 76th |
| 66th | +0.16▼0.06 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.16▼0.18 | 34th |
| 41st | 1▲0.2 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.8 | 59th |
| SMUoffense | defenseBoston College | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26th | 35.5%▼14.3 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 35.5%▲7.2 | 74th |
| 28th | −0.09▼0.32 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.09▲0.08 | 72nd |
| 49th | +0.04▼0.34 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.04▼0.06 | 51st |
| 15th | −0.24▼0.30 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.24▲0.23 | 86th |
| 79th | 0▲1.4 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.6 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Boston CollegeBC | SMUSMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2314th | Own 4097th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.4 pts84th | 0.0 pts39th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 6466th | 6260th |
| 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. | +5.066th | −5.035th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 372nd | 486th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −0.7 pts17th | 0.0 pts50th |
| 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. SMU +9.3: turnovers +2.6, field position +5.9, kicking −1.0, 4th downs +0.9, penalty first downs +0.8. | −9.313th | +9.387th |
Season so far
Boston College4–4 · 52nd-hardest schedule
L
at Cincinnati15–34missed +7
at Cincinnati15–34missed +7W
vs Rutgers28–21covered −3
vs Rutgers28–21covered −3Wvs Maine22–16missed −37.5
L
vs Virginia Tech14–21covered +14.5
vs Virginia Tech14–21covered +14.5Lat 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 +7SMU6–2 · 76th-hardest schedule
W
at Florida State27–24push −3
at Florida State27–24push −3Wvs UC Davis56–10covered −32
L
at Louisville31–41missed +3
at Louisville31–41missed +3W
vs Missouri State34–24missed −30.5
vs Missouri State34–24missed −30.5Wvs Boston College25–16missed −21.5
vs Boston College25–16missed −21.5W
vs Virginia23–13push −10
vs Virginia23–13push −10W
vs California59–20covered −19
vs California59–20covered −19L
at Syracuse27–30missed −9.5
at Syracuse27–30missed −9.5Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 3, 7:15 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is