Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected Oregon State 33.1, UTEP 25.1 at Sun Bowl in Week 4. That is a solid edge: Oregon State wins about 70% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 8 points and 58.2 combined points.
Oregon State is 1-2, scoring 32 and allowing 28.3 points per game (+3.7 per game). UTEP is 1-2, scoring 22.7 and allowing 37.7 points per game (-15 per game).
Oregon State's middle-of-the-pack offense (76th of 138 in our opponent-adjusted ratings, worth about 25.6 points against an average defense) has the clear edge over UTEP's struggling defense (136th); that mismatch is where most of Oregon State's projected points come from. Expect UTEP to find it hard going: Oregon State's below-average defense (92nd) outranks UTEP's struggling offense (118th of 138 in our opponent-adjusted ratings, worth about 20.5 points against an average defense).
College football is noisy: even a well-rated projection misses the final margin by about 14 points on average. Based on how real results have scattered around our numbers, the final margin should land somewhere between Oregon State by 31 and UTEP by 15 about 80% of the time.
UTEP gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Oregon State is still favoured on the road, so the ratings gap is bigger than the value of playing at home. The game is on MW+.
Result: Oregon State 33, UTEP 7. The model had the right winner; the margin was off by 18 points and the total by 18.2.
Market lines
Market lines ยท Source: The Odds API, ESPN, Action Network ยท Updated Oct 29, 9:25 AM UTC. Shown for information; not an input to our projections.
| Provider | Spread (open โ now) | Total (open โ now) | Moneyline (Oregon State / UTEP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Oregon State -11.75 โ Oregon State -11.5 | 54.75 โ 56.5 | -472.5 / +352.5 |
| DraftKings | Oregon State -12.5 โ Oregon State -11.5 | 55.5 โ 56.5 | -455 / +350 |
| Bovada | Oregon State -11 โ Oregon State -11.5 | 54 โ 56.5 | -490 / +355 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com ยท read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | UTEP win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | Oregon State -8 | 58.2 | 30% |
| Market consensus | Oregon State -11.5 | 56.5 | 21% |
| Blended projection | Oregon State -11 | 56.9 | 23% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- UTEP win probability
- model 30% ยท market (no-vig) 21% ยท difference +9 pts
- Margin
- model Oregon State -8 ยท market Oregon State -11.5 ยท difference +3.5 pts (UTEP view)
- Total
- model 58.2 ยท market 56.5 ยท difference +1.7
Model margin is 3.5 pts more toward UTEP than the market.
21+ only where legal. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Original projection vs new formula
| Projection | Score | Win prob | Margin miss | Total miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original projection | Oregon State 33.1, UTEP 25.1 | Oregon State 70%right winner | 18.0 | 18.2 |
| New formula | Oregon State 33.2, UTEP 25.1 | Oregon State 70%right winner | 17.9 | 18.3 |
Final: Oregon State 33, UTEP 7. Original = the number we posted before kickoff. New formula (2026-10-21 matchup terms) = the current model re-run with only the games played before this one.
Oregon State vs UTEP: stat comparison
Season to date before kickoff: these numbers are frozen at kickoff and do not include this game or anything after it.
| Stat | Oregon State | UTEP |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 32.0#68 | 22.7#111 |
| Points allowed per game | 28.3#109 | 37.7#131 |
| Yards per play | 6.52#60 | 5.66#102 |
| Yards per play allowed | 5.80#94 | 5.71#91 |
| Rushing yards per game | 92.3#136 | 161.7#85 |
| Net passing yards per game | 368.7#2 | 128.7#129 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 173.3#103 | 164.0#95 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 244.0#114 | 190.0#59 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.33#34 | 0.67#74 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.33#40 | 1.00#76 |
| Sacks per game | 2.67#31 | 1.33#107 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 2.00#98 | 3.00#130 |
| Stat | Oregon State | UTEP |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.16#40 | -0.01#114 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.10#105 | +0.17#123 |
| Success rate | 38.8%#115 | 42.7%#82 |
| Success rate allowed | 41.1%#84 | 46.4%#121 |
| Explosive play rate | 14.8%#33 | 13.1%#70 |
| Explosive plays allowed | 11.1%#61 | 13.2%#102 |
| Havoc rate | 13.3%#87 | 11.7%#112 |
| Havoc allowed | 13.1%#73 | 18.8%#135 |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 4.68#32 | 4.26#70 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 4.33#101 | 4.24#97 |
| Average starting field position | own 26#129 | own 32#46 |
| Opponents' starting field position | own 31#105 | own 36#137 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 70.7#28 | 51.3#138 |
| Stat | Oregon State | UTEP |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | -0.12#130 | -0.05#116 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.27#29 | +0.03#90 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.08#102 | +0.06#93 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.12#94 | +0.31#129 |
| Rushing success rate | 34.0%#129 | 37.5%#114 |
| Passing success rate | 40.6%#91 | 47.7%#44 |
| Run stuff rate | 8.6%#1 | 25.8%#136 |
| Passing-down success rate | 30.4%#84 | 26.0%#115 |
| Passing-down success allowed | 32.8%#104 | 39.9%#127 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 33.3%#124 | 26.5%#132 |
| Third-down rate allowed | 44.2%#106 | 52.5%#131 |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 80.0%#14 | 56.2%#106 |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 54.5%#53 | 61.0%#78 |
# = rank among 138 FBS teams. Efficiency numbers exclude garbage time. Per-play numbers of teams with a weak schedule are pulled toward their opponent-adjusted values (fully at one standard deviation below an average schedule). Source: play-by-play (cfbfastR / sportsdataverse), aggregated by us.
More: Oregon State schedule ยท UTEP schedule ยท all Week 4 projections
Share this prediction
Projections are statistical estimates for entertainment and analysis only. They are not betting advice and nothing here guarantees any result.
Free weekly projections email
One email a week in season: the closest projected games, the biggest mismatches and how the model graded out last week. Email address only โ no spam, unsubscribe any time.