Vegas Line
No market line
No total published
Model Projection
UCLA -8.0
UCLA 77.9% win · O/U 54.9
Value Edge
No market line
No market total to compare
Model Rationale
Shifted by +0.3 pts toward PUR on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- UCLA -6.0
- UCLA: 6 portal additions / 2 departures, first year under Bob Chesney — 2021–2025 archive weighted 45%, incoming portal talent +2.6 pts.
- PUR: 5 portal additions / 2 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 78%, incoming portal talent +1.7 pts.
Purdue — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
UCLA ranks #115 nationally allowing 291.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #74 run defense.
2Contain Anthony Woods
UCLA's top producer this season: 118 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Purdue has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Purdue converts 54.5% of third downs (#36 nationally) versus UCLA's 54.5%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Protect the turnover edge
Purdue is +1 in turnover margin (1 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; UCLA sits at +2.
5Move the ball efficiently
Purdue averages 523.0 total yards per game (#33 nationally). No market total is published for this game yet.
UCLA — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Purdue ranks #88 nationally allowing 218.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #35 run defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
UCLA converts 54.5% of third downs (#37 nationally) versus Purdue's 54.5%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
UCLA is +2 in turnover margin (3 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Purdue sits at +1.
4Move the ball efficiently
UCLA averages 461.0 total yards per game (#55 nationally). No market total is published for this game yet.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Nico IamaleavaUCLA · QB
- Passing Yds
- 184
- Completion %
- 63.6%
- Yards / Attempt
- 8.4
- TD : INT
- 0 : 1
- TD/INT Ratio
- 0.00:1
- Passer Rating
- 124.8
Leading Rusher
Anthony WoodsUCLA · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 118
- Carries
- 8
- Yards / Carry
- 14.8
- Rushing TD
- 2
- Long
- 53
Primary Receiver
Mikey MatthewsUCLA · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 88
- Receptions
- 4
- Yards / Catch
- 22.0
- Receiving TD
- 0
- Long
- 43
Defensive Leader
Samuel OmosighoUCLA · LB
- Tackles
- 14
- Solo
- 7
- Sacks
- 1.0
- TFL
- 2.0
- INT
- 0
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
UCLA by 8.2
Baseline UCLA -8.0
Simulated Total
54.9
Baseline 54.9
Unit Edge
PUR QB
UCLA FBS average · PUR Above average
PUR passing vs UCLA coverage
| 346.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 291.0 |
| 79.4% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 6.2 |
| 10.2 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 55.3% |
| 3.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 4.3% |
| 0.854 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.305 |
PUR rushing vs UCLA run defense
| 177.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 119.0 |
| 4.4 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.0 |
| 3.7 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 20.5% |
| 3.8% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 6 |
| 0.159 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.074 |
UCLA passing vs PUR coverage
| 218.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 184.0 |
| 9.9 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 63.6% |
| 54.5% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 8.4 |
| 13.6% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 0.00:1 |
| -0.106 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.026 |
Efficiency & situational
| 54.5% | Third-down conversion | 54.5% |
| 523.0 | Total yards / game | 461.0 |
| 284.0 | Yards allowed / game | 410.0 |
| +1 | Turnover margin | +2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.