Offense#111
-6.1vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play0.08 #114 FBSSuccess rate37.9% #117 FBS
Sun Belt · #96 of 138
Troy
Implied Strength-8.6vs. FBS average · ±3.9
Record2–0through completed games
Bowl Eligibility79%reach six wins
Strength of Schedule109thof 138 FBS teams
Schedule lens
What matters next
The headline numbers are above. Here is where the season starts to take shape.
Next matchupat MissouriWeek 3 · OV Line TROY +24 · 3% win chance →Toughest remaining test#24 MissouriWeek 3 · 3% site win chance · View matchup →
Team identity
Where the strength lives
Defense projects as the stronger unit by 3.7 rating points.
Defense#84
-2.5vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play allowed0.11 #51 FBSSuccess rate allowed39.6% #48 FBS
2025 PPA (predicted points added per play) and success rate. How this split works →
Build Your Ratings
Who would win on a neutral field?
Pick the team you think is better. Your answers help build your personal ratings.
VS
Looks like you’re high on this year.
Want to explore new teams or keep comparing ?
Stored only in this browser -- nothing is sent anywhere.
Season outlook · 50,000 simulations
How Troy's 2026 could unfold
The current projection is 7–5 (6.9 expected wins), with a <0.01% chance to reach the playoff. The distribution below shows how often each regular-season win total appeared across the schedule-aware simulations.
Range of outcomes
Projected win distribution
Most common and median 7 winsCentral 80% 5–9 winsBowl eligible 79.2%
Simulated (schedule-aware)Central 80% rangeMarket win total
Postseason path
2026 playoff outlook
0.4%Make the 12-team field
Still outside the median outcome across the schedule-aware simulations.
How the field is reached0.4% total
Auto-bid0.3%
At-large<0.01%
Outside field99.6%
Conference title7.8%
What could move the outlook
Biggest questions
Unresolved does not mean negative. A point estimate appears only when the historical evidence supports one.
No major preseason uncertainty signals currently clear the display threshold for Troy. We will update this view as matchup and in-season evidence develops.
Projection contextRoster, continuity, and market inputsView details
The market win total, returning production, coaching continuity, transfer talent, and recent NFL production help explain the evidence surrounding this projection.
Returning Production35.3%share of prior-year PPA returning for 2026
2026 Transfer Class103rdof 138 FBS teams by combined portal talent
Recent NFL Draft Production101stof 138 FBS teams by NFL talent produced
Market win total7.0Consensus preseason line
Final · Sep 5Suggested side did not cover
Sam Houston at Troy · Troy, AL · Veterans Memorial Stadium (AL)
Pregame evidence · 2022–25
Troy through the lens
The OV Line is the aggregate-rating baseline. The market gap shows where the game-level consensus differed, while identified Factors show how much of that difference our research may explain. ATS records are descriptive context—not a claim that OV should outperform the market.
Market ATS73%8–3–1 against consensus
Average line gap3.2 pts50% inside 3 points · 6 of 12
Factor coverage33%4 of 12 games
Factor signals25% aligned1 of 4 individual observations · 0 neutral
Historical sample12 gamesmarket-covered games from 2022–25
Explanatory history
Factors present in Troy games
| Factor | Games | Average estimate | Aligned with market | Research status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty | 3 | 3.6 pts toward Troy | 33%1 of 3 directional cases | Supported · wider uncertainty |
| Rest Differential | 1 | 1.0 pts toward Troy | 0%0 of 1 directional cases | Supported |
Underlying recordInspect all 12 historical gamesView games
| Season | Game | OV baseline | Market | Market gap | Identified adjustment | Remaining gap | Result | Market ATS | Factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 · W15 | at James MadisonAway | Troy +22.5 | Troy +24.5 | 1.9 pts toward opponents | 2.9 pts toward Troy | 4.7 pts toward opponents | L 14–31 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W14 | at Southern MissAway | Troy +6.5 | Troy +7 | 0.3 pts toward opponents | None identified | 0.3 pts toward opponents | W 28–18 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W13 | vs. Georgia StateHome | Troy -14.5 | Troy -9.5 | 4.9 pts toward opponents | None identified | 4.9 pts toward opponents | W 31–19 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W12 | at Old DominionAway | Troy +13 | Troy +9.5 | 3.3 pts toward Troy | None identified | 3.3 pts toward Troy | L 0–33 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W10 | vs. Arkansas StateHome | Troy -9.5 | Troy -7.5 | 2.1 pts toward opponents | None identified | 2.1 pts toward opponents | L 10–23 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W9 | vs. LouisianaHome | Troy -9.5 | Troy -7 | 2.3 pts toward opponents | None identified | 2.3 pts toward opponents | W 35–23 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W8 | at UL MonroeAway | Troy -3.5 | Troy -4.5 | 0.9 pts toward Troy | None identified | 0.9 pts toward Troy | W 37–14 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W7 | at Texas StateAway | Troy +12 | Troy +7.5 | 4.3 pts toward Troy | None identified | 4.3 pts toward Troy | W 48–41 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W6 | vs. South AlabamaHome | Troy -3.5 | Troy +2.5 | 6.0 pts toward opponents | 1.0 pts toward Troy | 7.0 pts toward opponents | W 31–24 | W | Rest Differential |
| 2025 · W3 | vs. MemphisHome | Troy +7.5 | Troy +4.5 | 2.9 pts toward Troy | None identified | 2.9 pts toward Troy | L 7–28 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W2 | at ClemsonAway | Troy +35 | Troy +30.5 | 4.6 pts toward Troy | 5.0 pts toward Troy | 0.4 pts toward opponents | L 16–27 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W1 | vs. NichollsHome | Troy -22.5 | Troy -18 | 4.4 pts toward opponents | 2.9 pts toward Troy | 7.3 pts toward opponents | W 38–20 | P | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
Sample: 12 market-covered games from 2022–25. Identified adjustments are rough sums of the Factors shown and are not a replacement betting line. Remaining gap is market consensus minus the OV baseline and identified adjustments. A push means the team’s scoring margin exactly matched the market line.