Week 2 · Final
21 – 28
Vegas Line
Boston College -3
Total 54.5
Model Projection
BC -5.0
BC 67.7% win · O/U 54.5
Value Edge
1.8 pt edge: BC
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +0.6 pts toward RUTG on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- BC -1.4
- BC: 0 portal additions / 4 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 87%, incoming portal talent −3.1 pts.
- RUTG: 0 portal additions / 2 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 94%, incoming portal talent −1.7 pts.
Rutgers — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Boston College ranks #126 nationally allowing 254.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #11 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Rutgers converts 27.3% of third downs (#116 nationally) versus Boston College's 30.8%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Rutgers is -4 in turnover margin (0 forced, 4 lost) across 1 recorded games; Boston College sits at -2.
4Clear 28 points
The market total for this game is 54.5. Anything above 28 points puts Rutgers on the winning side of an even split.
Boston College — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Rutgers ranks #115 nationally allowing 200.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #75 pass defense.
2Contain Antwan Raymond
Rutgers's top producer this season: 42 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Boston College has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Boston College converts 30.8% of third downs (#110 nationally) versus Rutgers's 27.3%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Fix the turnover margin
Boston College is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; Rutgers sits at -4.
5Clear 28 points
The market total for this game is 54.5. Anything above 28 points puts Boston College on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Dylan LonerganRUTG · QB
- Passing Yds
- 242
- Completion %
- 55.2%
- Yards / Attempt
- 8.3
- TD : INT
- 2 : 3
- TD/INT Ratio
- 0.67:1
- Passer Rating
- 127.3
Leading Rusher
Antwan RaymondRUTG · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 42
- Carries
- 14
- Yards / Carry
- 3.0
- Rushing TD
- 0
- Long
- 5
Primary Receiver
KJ DuffRUTG · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 196
- Receptions
- 9
- Yards / Catch
- 21.8
- Receiving TD
- 3
- Long
- 78
Defensive Leader
Sean AllisonRUTG · LB
- Tackles
- 8
- Solo
- 7
- Sacks
- 0.0
- TFL
- 0.0
- 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
BC by 4.8
Baseline BC -5.0
Simulated Total
54.5
Baseline 54.5
Unit Edge
RUTG QB
BC FBS average · RUTG FBS average
RUTG passing vs BC coverage
| 319.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 85.0 |
| 57.9% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 5.7 |
| 8.4 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 73.3% |
| 1.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 6.7% |
| 0.483 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.192 |
RUTG rushing vs BC run defense
| 30.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 254.0 |
| 1.2 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 5.5 |
| 2.0 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 9.1% |
| 21.1% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 4 |
| -0.325 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | 0.271 |
BC passing vs RUTG coverage
| 197.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 223.0 |
| 9.0 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 51.4% |
| 86.4% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 6.4 |
| 4.5% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 1.00:1 |
| 0.647 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.054 |
Efficiency & situational
| 27.3% | Third-down conversion | 30.8% |
| 349.0 | Total yards / game | 388.0 |
| 397.0 | Yards allowed / game | 339.0 |
| -4 | Turnover margin | -2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.