Week 2 · Final
35 – 24
Vegas Line
Texas Tech -26.5
Total 53.5
Model Projection
TTU -23.0
TTU 97.2% win · O/U 53.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: ORST
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +2.9 pts toward TTU on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- TTU -6.1
- ORST: 0 portal additions / 2 departures, first year under JaMarcus Shephard — 2021–2025 archive weighted 64%, incoming portal talent −1.0 pts.
- TTU: 8 portal additions / 1 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 71%, incoming portal talent +6.0 pts.
Texas Tech — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Oregon State ranks #121 nationally allowing 228.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #117 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Texas Tech converts 41.7% of third downs (#77 nationally) versus Oregon State's 26.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Texas Tech is +0 in turnover margin (1 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Oregon State sits at +2.
4Clear 27 points
The market total for this game is 53.5. Anything above 27 points puts Texas Tech on the winning side of an even split.
Oregon State — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Texas Tech ranks #41 nationally allowing 75.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #35 pass defense.
2Contain J'Koby Williams
Texas Tech's top producer this season: 71 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Oregon State has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Oregon State converts 26.7% of third downs (#118 nationally) versus Texas Tech's 41.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Protect the turnover edge
Oregon State is +2 in turnover margin (2 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; Texas Tech sits at +0.
5Clear 27 points
The market total for this game is 53.5. Anything above 27 points puts Oregon State on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Will HammondTTU · QB
- Passing Yds
- 298
- Completion %
- 78.8%
- Yards / Attempt
- 9.0
- TD : INT
- 1 : 1
- TD/INT Ratio
- 1.00:1
- Passer Rating
- 158.6
Leading Rusher
J'Koby WilliamsTTU · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 71
- Carries
- 13
- Yards / Carry
- 5.5
- Rushing TD
- 1
- Long
- 14
Primary Receiver
Kenny JohnsonTTU · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 76
- Receptions
- 4
- Yards / Catch
- 19.0
- Receiving TD
- 0
- Long
- 31
Defensive Leader
Jamond MathisTTU · LB
- Tackles
- 6
- Solo
- 3
- Sacks
- 2.5
- TFL
- 2.5
- 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
TTU by 23.0
Baseline TTU -23.0
Simulated Total
53.5
Baseline 53.5
Unit Edge
TTU QB
ORST FBS average · TTU Above average
TTU passing vs ORST coverage
| 298.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 305.0 |
| 76.5% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 9.8 |
| 8.8 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 64.5% |
| 1.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 3.2% |
| 0.451 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.439 |
TTU rushing vs ORST run defense
| 173.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 228.0 |
| 4.4 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 5.6 |
| 3.7 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 15.0% |
| 10.7% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 3 |
| 0.236 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | 0.176 |
ORST passing vs TTU coverage
| 119.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 376.0 |
| 3.7 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 60.4% |
| 56.3% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 7.8 |
| 9.4% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 1.00:1 |
| -0.079 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.289 |
Efficiency & situational
| 41.7% | Third-down conversion | 26.7% |
| 471.0 | Total yards / game | 402.0 |
| 194.0 | Yards allowed / game | 533.0 |
| 0 | Turnover margin | +2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.