Week 2 · Final
27 – 29
Vegas Line
Ohio -3
Total 50.5
Model Projection
OHIO -3.5
OHIO 62.8% win · O/U 50.5
Value Edge
Model agrees with market
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +0.1 pts toward OHIO on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- JXST -0.7
- OHIO: 0 portal additions / 1 departures, first year under John Hauser — 2021–2025 archive weighted 67%, incoming portal talent −1.0 pts.
- JXST: 0 portal additions / 2 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 94%, incoming portal talent −1.0 pts.
Jacksonville State — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Ohio ranks #124 nationally allowing 248.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #111 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Jacksonville State converts 52.4% of third downs (#43 nationally) versus Ohio's 40.0%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Jacksonville State is +0 in turnover margin (3 forced, 3 lost) across 2 recorded games; Ohio sits at -1.
4Clear 26 points
The market total for this game is 50.5. Anything above 26 points puts Jacksonville State on the winning side of an even split.
Ohio — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Jacksonville State ranks #116 nationally allowing 202.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #41 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Ohio converts 40.0% of third downs (#84 nationally) versus Jacksonville State's 52.4%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Ohio is -1 in turnover margin (0 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Jacksonville State sits at +0.
4Clear 26 points
The market total for this game is 50.5. Anything above 26 points puts Ohio on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Leading Rusher
Primary Receiver
Defensive Leader
Matchup Simulator
Starts from the CFB 360 projection for this exact game. Turnover swings are valued at 4.2 points each; pace scales the projected total against a 140-play baseline.
Simulated Winner
OHIO by 3.4
Baseline OHIO -3.5
Simulated Total
50.5
Baseline 50.5
Unit Edge
JXST QB
OHIO Below average · JXST FBS average
JXST passing vs OHIO coverage
| 218.5 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 275.0 |
| 66.0% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 8.6 |
| 8.2 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 56.3% |
| 2.50:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 6.3% |
| 0.423 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.450 |
JXST rushing vs OHIO run defense
| 129.5 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 248.0 |
| 4.2 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 5.9 |
| 2.6 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 15.0% |
| 20.0% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 5 |
| -0.090 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | 0.528 |
OHIO passing vs JXST coverage
| 127.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 164.0 |
| 6.0 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 43.8% |
| 64.3% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 5.1 |
| 7.1% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 1.00:1 |
| 0.037 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | -0.027 |
Efficiency & situational
| 52.4% | Third-down conversion | 40.0% |
| 348.0 | Total yards / game | 303.0 |
| 329.0 | Yards allowed / game | 523.0 |
| 0 | Turnover margin | -1 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.