Week 1 report · Sat, Sep 5 · 2026 Week 1
North Texas
6–2 · Ours #48 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.
16–52FinalWe had UNT 16 – IU 41
AP #6Indiana
7–1 · Ours #4 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.IU 94%IU won
IU 94%IU 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 IU −40.5.IU −40oursOur 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. −25.4 · UNT 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 57.4.56.5final 68 · over by 11.5
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.UNT +40.5Wbeat the close by 0.5
UNT +40.5Wbeat the close by 0.5Quarterbacksthis game
Tayven Jackson22/28 · 192 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.
- +0.1656th pct
- Comp %
- 78.6
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Josh Hoover13/16 · 231 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.
- +1.20100th pct
- Comp %
- 81.3
- TD
- 4
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| North Texasoffense | Played like IU +11.2Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseIndiana | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36th | 38.2%▼12.3 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 38.2%▼2.4 | 64th |
| 70th | +0.19▼0.12 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.19▼0.31 | 30th |
| 77th | +0.35▼0.12 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.35▼0.47 | 23rd |
| 50th | +0.05▼0.08 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.05▼0.15 | 50th |
| 41st | 1 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1 | 59th |
| Indianaoffense | defenseNorth Texas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74th | 48.6%▲6.9 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 48.6%▼5.0 | 26th |
| 88th | +0.37▲0.28 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.37▼0.24 | 12th |
| 99th | +1.07▲0.95 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +1.07▼0.70 | 1st |
| 23rd | −0.16▼0.17 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.16▲0.13 | 77th |
| 79th | 0▲0.3 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.0 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| North TexasUNT | IndianaIU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2738th | Own 47100th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.0 pts74th | +1.3 pts82nd |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 5540th | 3511th |
| 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. | −20.08th | +20.092nd |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 251st | 372nd |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | +0.2 pts61st | +0.6 pts82nd |
| 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. IU +11.3: turnovers +2.6, field position +7.1, kicking +0.3, 4th downs +0.5, penalty first downs +0.8. | −11.38th | +11.392nd |
Season so far
North Texas6–2 · 87th-hardest schedule
Lat Indiana16–52covered +40
at Indiana16–52covered +40W
vs UNLV44–6covered +3
vs UNLV44–6covered +3L
at Texas State35–49missed +3
at Texas State35–49missed +3Wvs Houston Christian63–14covered −38.5
W
at Tulsa45–44missed −2.5
at Tulsa45–44missed −2.5W
vs Charlotte50–10covered −28
vs Charlotte50–10covered −28W
at Navy49–39covered −3
at Navy49–39covered −3W
vs Florida Atlantic48–41missed −14.5
vs Florida Atlantic48–41missed −14.5Indiana7–1 · 34th-hardest schedule
Wvs North Texas52–16missed −40
vs North Texas52–16missed −40Wvs Howard55–0missed −58
W
vs Western Kentucky38–0missed −44.5
vs Western Kentucky38–0missed −44.5W
vs Northwestern29–23missed −20.5
vs Northwestern29–23missed −20.5W
at Rutgers47–15covered −24.5
at Rutgers47–15covered −24.5W
at Nebraska20–17missed −9
at Nebraska20–17missed −9L
vs Ohio State15–19missed +2.5
vs Ohio State15–19missed +2.5W
at Michigan13–6missed −7.5
at Michigan13–6missed −7.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 5, 10:05 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is