Week 9 report · Thu, Oct 29 · 2026 Week 9
Florida Atlantic
5–3 · Ours #104 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.
41–48FinalWe had FAU 30 – UNT 44
North Texas
6–2 · Ours #52 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.UNT 81%UNT won
UNT 81%UNT 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 UNT −12.5.UNT −14.5oursOur 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. −14.6 · FAU covered by 7.5
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 73.7.78.5final 89 · over by 10.5
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 −13.5Lbeat the close by 1.0
UNT −13.5Lbeat the close by 1.0The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Florida Atlanticoffense | Played like UNT +9.4Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseNorth Texas | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 72nd | 48.2%▲0.8 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 48.2%▼4.6 | 28th |
| 65th | +0.16▼0.02 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.16 | 35th |
| 80th | +0.39▲0.14 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.39▲0.09 | 20th |
| 7th | −0.36▼0.48 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.36▲0.38 | 93rd |
| 15th | 2▼1.5 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.3 | 85th |
| North Texasoffense | defenseFlorida Atlantic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83rd | 52.4%▲4.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 52.4%▼7.5 | 17th |
| 84th | +0.33▲0.04 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.33 | 16th |
| 82nd | +0.43▼0.03 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.43▼0.27 | 18th |
| 74th | +0.21▲0.11 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.21▲0.13 | 26th |
| 41st | 1 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.2 | 59th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Florida AtlanticFAU | North TexasUNT | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2849th | Own 3375th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 8599th | 8498th |
| 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. | −3.439th | +3.461st |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | 0.0 pts58th | −0.1 pts40th |
| 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. UNT +1.4: field position +1.5, 4th downs −0.1. | −1.443rd | +1.457th |
Season so far
Florida Atlantic5–3 · 110th-hardest schedule
L
at Florida21–66missed +25.5
at Florida21–66missed +25.5W
vs Navy38–30covered +4
vs Navy38–30covered +4W
vs Florida International16–10covered −4.5
vs Florida International16–10covered −4.5W
at UL Monroe45–17covered −11.5
at UL Monroe45–17covered −11.5Wvs Texas Southern66–10covered −47
L
at Army24–56missed +2.5
at Army24–56missed +2.5W
vs Rice51–49missed −9
vs Rice51–49missed −9Lat North Texas41–48covered +14.5
at North Texas41–48covered +14.5North Texas6–2 · 87th-hardest schedule
L
at 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 −28Wat Navy49–39covered −3
at Navy49–39covered −3Wvs Florida Atlantic48–41missed −14.5
vs Florida Atlantic48–41missed −14.5Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 29, 7:15 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is