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)
UTEP logo
Home team (Team B)
OU logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
UTEP logoUTEP
1-1 ยท 48.9 PWR
96%

OU win probability

Projected line: OU -21.8

OU logoOklahoma
1-1 ยท 84.0 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.

37QB vs QB74

-15.5 OU advantage โ€” 37-point index gap over UTEP (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). OU Top 25 level.

35WR Room vs WR Room73

-16.0 OU advantage โ€” 38-point index gap over UTEP (explosive pass rate and yards per target). OU Top 25 level.

37RB Room vs RB Room63

-10.9 OU advantage โ€” 26-point index gap over UTEP (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). OU Above average.

35Run Blocking vs Run Defense67

-13.4 OU advantage โ€” 32-point index gap over UTEP (line yards against stuff rate). OU Above average.

29Offensive Line vs Pass Rush74

-18.9 OU advantage โ€” 45-point index gap over UTEP (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). OU Top 25 level.

36Pass Game vs Coverage69

-13.9 OU advantage โ€” 33-point index gap over UTEP (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). OU Above average.

38Pass Rush vs Offensive Line66

-11.8 OU advantage โ€” 28-point index gap over UTEP (pressure differential in the trenches). OU Above average.

31Coverage vs Pass Game74

-18.1 OU advantage โ€” 43-point index gap over UTEP (coverage grade against target efficiency). OU Top 25 level.

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