luckadjusted
CFB Week 4 · 2026

Week 1 2026 · September 5, 2026

UT Rio Grande Valley at UTSA, Week 1 2026: who deserved to win?

UTSA beat UT Rio Grande Valley 45–16, and the replays back it up: with the way both teams actually played, UTSA wins 10 of 10.

Before kickoff UTSA was a 97% favorite.

Final

UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros 16
UTSA Roadrunners 45

September 5, 2026 · Alamodome · Closing line: UTSA −28.5

Luck index +1 UTSA about even · −1 UT Rio Grande Valley

Each team’s own plays from this game, resampled into new drives 4,000 times: with the way both teams actually played, how often does this performance win? How the replay works

Ten replays. UT Rio Grande Valley wins 0, UTSA wins 10.

  1. 1 RGV 28 UTSA 35
  2. 2 RGV 10 UTSA 24
  3. 3 RGV 24 UTSA 42
  4. 4 RGV 23 UTSA 45
  5. 5 RGV 19 UTSA 44
  6. 6 RGV 6 UTSA 35
  7. 7 RGV 10 UTSA 44
  8. 8 RGV 17 UTSA 55
  9. 9 RGV 3 UTSA 45
  10. 10 RGV 3 UTSA 54

Three other ways to ask

Each answers a different question, so none of them replaces the replay above.

The closing betting line, turned into a probability. What everyone knew before the game.

The line plus what this game showed, weighted by how much one game can tell. It stays close to the line because one game says little.

Every kick, fumble bounce, conversion and judgment call redrawn; everything else fixed. The narrowest view of luck.

How 4,000 replays ended

UT Rio Grande Valley wins 1% of them, UTSA 99%. The line is what actually happened: UTSA by 29.

Show as a table
Final margin in the replaysShare of replays
UT Rio Grande Valley by 17+0.1%
UT Rio Grande Valley by 9–160.2%
UT Rio Grande Valley by 1–80.9%
Level after regulation0.3%
UTSA by 1–83.7%
UTSA by 9–166.7%
UTSA by 17+88.3%

Where the luck was

What the luck was worth

Every lucky and unlucky play, weighted by the moment it happened: its swing in win probability, added up by kind. A missed kick in a decided game counts for nothing; the same kick at the end of a tie game can be most of a win.

Swings add up across a game, so in one that went back and forth they can pass 100%. On the scoreboard the same luck was worth +4.8 points to UT Rio Grande Valley: the final margin was UTSA by 29, without the luck UTSA by 33.9. Luck shares are the fitted ones (how much of each kind is luck).

The kicks

How likely each kicker was to make that kick (his own record, the distance), and what happened.

  • B. Gardner, 34 yds missed · 83% expected
  • B. Gardner, 44 yds made · 65% expected
  • M. Petro, 30 yds made · 88% expected
  • B. Gardner, 24 yds made · 92% expected
  • M. Petro, 34 yds missed · 83% expected
  • B. Gardner, 40 yds made · 73% expected
Bar: expected chance of a make. Filled dot: made. Open dot: missed or blocked.

Penalties: UT Rio Grande Valley 13 for 105 yards, UTSA 10 for 100 yards

Every accepted flag, in order, and what it did to the helped team’s chance of winning at that moment, including any play it wiped out (points on the scoreboard in grey). A flag in a decided game is worth nothing; one at the turn of a close game can be worth most of a win. Judgment calls count toward luck, pre-snap fouls mostly don’t. How calls are valued

WhenFlagWin probability for
Q1 13:48 Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yards 0% RGV +0.8 pts
Q1 11:58 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 10 yards +1% UTSA +2.4 pts
Q1 11:40 Face Mask on UTSA, 15 yards +1% RGV +2.8 pts
Q1 8:43 Personal Foul on UT Rio Grande Valley, 15 yards 0% UTSA +0.7 pts
Q1 3:03 Delay of Game on UTSA, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% RGV +0.2 pts
Q2 13:07 Roughing the Passer on UTSA, 15 yards 0% RGV +1.6 pts
Q2 12:34 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 8 yards 0% UTSA +0.5 pts
Q2 12:34 False Start on UT Rio Grande Valley, 4 yards · pre-snap 0% RGV +0.4 pts
Q2 7:00 Unnecessary Roughness on UT Rio Grande Valley, 15 yards 0% UTSA +1.6 pts
Q2 6:06 Delay of Game on UT Rio Grande Valley, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% UTSA +0.9 pts
Q2 4:29 Ineligible Downfield on UT Rio Grande Valley, 5 yards 0% UTSA +0.7 pts
Q2 1:20 False Start on UTSA, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% RGV +0.8 pts
Q2 0:24 False Start on UT Rio Grande Valley, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% UTSA +1.2 pts
Q3 14:03 Holding on UTSA, 10 yards 0% RGV +0.8 pts
Q3 11:45 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 3 yards 0% UTSA +0.2 pts
Q3 10:56 Unsportsmanlike Conduct on UTSA, 15 yards 0% RGV +1.6 pts
Q3 8:19 False Start on UTSA, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% RGV +1.1 pts
Q3 3:53 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 10 yards 0% UTSA +1.9 pts
Q3 2:56 False Start on UT Rio Grande Valley, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% UTSA +0.4 pts
Q3 0:27 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 10 yards 0% UTSA +0.6 pts
Q3 0:23 False Start on UTSA, 5 yards · pre-snap 0% RGV +0.5 pts
Q4 13:09 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 10 yards 0% UTSA +1.8 pts
Q4 10:57 Holding on UTSA, 10 yards 0% RGV +1.3 pts

When it happened

UTSA’s chance of winning

Numbers mark the biggest luck moments, listed below.

Our in-game win probability: the score, the value of the possession and the time left, starting from the betting line. Overtime has no clock and is drawn at a fixed width. Shaded above the middle while UTSA was ahead in it, below while UT Rio Grande Valley was.
#WhenWhat happenedWin probability forNext drive
1 Q1 14:11 UT Rio Grande Valley converted 3rd & 33rd & 4th downs · 54% expected +0% RGV RGV: Missed field goal
2 Q1 13:48 Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yardsJudgment calls +0% RGV RGV: Missed field goal
3 Q1 11:58 Holding on UT Rio Grande Valley, 10 yardsJudgment calls +1% UTSA UTSA: Touchdown
4 Q1 11:40 Face Mask on UTSA, 15 yardsJudgment calls +1% RGV RGV: Missed field goal
5 Q1 10:17 UT Rio Grande Valley was stopped on 3rd & 103rd & 4th downs · 28% expected +0% UTSA RGV: Missed field goal
6 Q1 10:13 B. Gardner missed a 34-yard field goalKicks · 83% expected for him +2% UTSA RGV: Punt
7 Q1 3:03 UTSA was stopped on 3rd & 73rd & 4th downs · 42% expectedDelay of Game on UTSA, 5 yardsPre-snap flags +0% RGV UTSA: Punt
8 Q2 12:40 Return touchdown by UTSASpecial teams +1% UTSA UTSA: Touchdown

Adjust the assumptions

Disagree with how much of a fumble bounce or a pass interference call is luck? Change it and the coin-flip replay reruns in your browser.

Only coin-flips re-rolled

UT Rio Grande Valley 0% · UTSA 100%

Final margin
UTSA by 29
Luck in points
4.8 for UT Rio Grande Valley
Luck-adjusted margin
UTSA by 33.8
Replay with same day's form
UT Rio Grande Valley 1% · UTSA 99% unchanged: why
How much of each is luck?

0% treats it as skill, 100% as pure luck. The tick is our fit.

What counts

None by default: our tests measured no carryover after a lucky break. Slide it up to count a break for more than its own swing. Why

Flip a play

Force the other outcome, in this game and in every replay: a made kick becomes a miss, a stop becomes a conversion, a flag goes the other way.

About these numbers

Play-by-play and expected points from CollegeFootballData.com via cfbfastR; win probability from our own model of the score, the possession and the betting line; kicks valued against each kicker’s own record. College play-by-play has no charting of drops or interception-worthy throws and no injury reports, so those kinds of luck aren’t counted here.

Methodology and validation · All Week 1 2026 games · UT Rio Grande Valley · UTSA

More from Week 1 2026

Every week 1 game, 2026