CFB 360 is currently a work in progress! Learn more about our unbiased ranking engine & upcoming Player Recruiting Hub

Composite projection engine

Matchup Simulator

Away team (Team A)
OU logo
Home team (Team B)
MICH logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
OU logoOklahoma
1-1 ยท 84.0 PWR
55%

OU win probability

Projected line: OU -0.9

MICH logoMichigan
2-0 ยท 82.5 PWR

Positional unit index โ€” 0 to 100 scale

50 = FBS average ยท 72+ = Top 25 level ยท 90+ = elite national top five. Week 3 weighting: 60% preseason roster talent + 40% live 2026 game EPA.

74QB vs QB64

+4.2 OU advantage โ€” 10-point index gap over Michigan (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). OU Top 25 level.

73WR Room vs WR Room63

+4.2 OU advantage โ€” 10-point index gap over Michigan (explosive pass rate and yards per target). OU Top 25 level.

63RB Room vs RB Room65

-0.8 MICH advantage โ€” 2-point index gap over Oklahoma (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). MICH Above average.

62Run Blocking vs Run Defense65

-1.3 MICH advantage โ€” 3-point index gap over Oklahoma (line yards against stuff rate). MICH Above average.

66Offensive Line vs Pass Rush67

-0.4 MICH advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over Oklahoma (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). MICH Above average.

74Pass Game vs Coverage70

+1.7 OU advantage โ€” 4-point index gap over Michigan (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). OU Top 25 level.

74Pass Rush vs Offensive Line66

+3.4 OU advantage โ€” 8-point index gap over Michigan (pressure differential in the trenches). OU Top 25 level.

69Coverage vs Pass Game63

+2.5 OU advantage โ€” 6-point index gap over Michigan (coverage grade against target efficiency). OU Above average.

Projections use opponent-adjusted efficiency, SOS, and unit-level grades derived from live 2026 team data.