Texas beat Ohio State 24–23: the comeback was more than one missed kick
A 23–3 deficit became a one-point win. Arch Manning and Hollywood Smothers finished it, but Texas first had to make three scoring chances matter—and stop Ohio State from closing the game.
Verified brief
The story in 60 seconds
Texas defeated Ohio State 24–23 in Austin on September 12, scoring all 21 of its second-half points in the fourth quarter. Hollywood Smothers ran in the winning touchdown with 25 seconds left. Our view: the missed Ohio State field goal opened the final door, but Texas earned its opportunity by scoring twice beforehand and limiting the Buckeyes to three points after halftime.
This brief and the full story below are based on the disclosed sources. SearchTrends Daily’s interpretation appears later under “Our take.”
Full reporting
The complete story
Texas turned a 23–3 deficit at the start of the fourth quarter into a 24–23 victory over Ohio State on Saturday night in Austin. The official Ohio State game centre marks the September 12 game as complete. Texas is 2–0; Ohio State is 1–1. The teams entered the matchup ranked fourth and first respectively. Those are the pregame rankings, not a claim about the next poll.
Ohio State had done almost all of the early scoring: ten points in each of the first two quarters and a field goal in the third. Texas had only a second-quarter field goal. NCAA.com’s running account records turnovers on the Longhorns’ first two possessions, including a fumble on their opening offensive play. The deficit was built through a sustained bad start, not one isolated mistake.
The comeback began with Arch Manning’s touchdown pass to Ryan Wingo early in the fourth quarter. Smothers then scored from one yard with 7:14 remaining, according to Jim Vertuno’s Associated Press report. With the extra points, Texas had reduced the gap to 23–17. That made Ohio State’s next possession particularly important: a field goal could restore a two-score margin.
Connor Hawkins, who had already made three field goals, missed his 45-yard attempt. NCAA.com places the miss at 4:16 remaining and records the ensuing Texas drive as 73 yards, with Manning completing four of five passes on that possession. Smothers supplied the final yard for the touchdown with 25 seconds to play. The extra point put Texas ahead for the final time.
Ohio State could not produce a reply. The AP account records Julian Sayin’s final desperation pass being intercepted. Sayin finished with 278 passing yards; Jeremiah Smith caught eight passes for 164 yards and a touchdown. Those strong individual totals coexist with the central second-half fact: the Buckeyes added only three points after the interval.
Source perspectives
What other reporting adds
These are the reports, official records, and trend observations used to build the story. The note under each link explains exactly what it contributes.
Primary final-state check: Texas 24, Ohio State 23; the quarter-by-quarter scoring and team records. This is a team-controlled source, not independent reporting.
Read original source ↗Associated Press via FOX4 Kansas CityTexas stuns Ohio State after erasing a 20-point fourth-quarter deficitJim Vertuno’s full completed-game report supplies the scoring sequence, individual receiving/passing totals, prior meetings and September 19 fixtures.
Read original source ↗NCAA.comCollege football Week 2: recap, scores and highlightsThe completed Texas entry records the missed kick, 4:16 remaining, the 73-yard winning drive and Manning’s four-of-five passing on that drive.
Read original source ↗Google TrendsTrending Now — United StatesObserved September 13 around 04:02 UTC: the active Ohio State football cluster included Texas and Arch Manning queries. Discovery evidence only; not every query in the broad cluster is attributed to this match.
Read original source ↗SearchTrends Daily opinion
Our take
Analysis
What the evidence and search signal suggest
Our analysis: the missed kick was the hinge, not the whole explanation. At 23–3, one missed field goal would have been irrelevant unless Texas also found repeated scoring drives. The first two touchdowns changed the arithmetic: after them, a touchdown and extra point could win rather than merely make the defeat closer. Texas had already made the final opportunity valuable before Hawkins missed.
There is an equally important defensive side. Ohio State’s first-half production did not carry into the second. Its three second-half points meant Texas could keep pursuing a comeback without having each score answered. This does not prove a single tactical adjustment caused the turnaround; the verified sequence establishes the effect, while detailed claims about coverages or play-calling would require further evidence.
Nor do larger individual passing numbers automatically describe the more effective closing offense. Sayin’s 278 yards and Smith’s receiving performance explain why Ohio State threatened. Manning’s four completions on the final drive explain a different thing: execution within the possession that decided the game. A season evaluation should use more evidence than one drive, but this match was decided by points made—and prevented—at the finish.
Analysis and commentary are SearchTrends Daily’s interpretation. They are intentionally separated from the sourced account above.
Meaning
Why this matters
This was an early-season meeting between highly ranked teams with national expectations. A head-to-head win is meaningful evidence for Texas; it is not an automatic award of the next No. 1 ranking or a guaranteed postseason place. Ohio State’s loss is damaging precisely because the winning position was so strong, but it does not settle the rest of its season.
For readers arriving through searches about Manning, the result also deserves a team-level answer. The quarterback helped convert the last possession. Smothers finished two drives. The defense kept the margin from becoming unreachable. Reducing the outcome to a famous surname would miss how those contributions depended on one another.
Background
How we got here
The AP report places the result against two earlier Ohio State wins over Texas in the previous two seasons. That gives the reversal a rivalry context without making the earlier meetings a script for this one. NCAA.com identifies it as Texas’s largest comeback win since 2007.
The quarter-by-quarter record is a useful guard against hindsight. For three quarters, Ohio State’s lead grew; in the fourth it scored nothing while Texas scored three touchdowns. The outcome changes the story’s ending, not the reality of the Longhorns’ earlier difficulties. A good review needs to account for both.
Outlook
What is likely to happen next
The AP report lists September 19 home games against UTSA for Texas and Kent State for Ohio State. Those are scheduled fixtures, not results. The next rankings update will show how voters respond; we are not assigning Texas a new position before the poll is published.
Our conditional outlook: Texas’s result becomes stronger evidence of sustained improvement if it pairs effective late-game execution with cleaner starts. Ohio State’s response becomes more convincing if it sustains scoring and finishes defensive possessions when ahead. One comfortable next result would not, by itself, answer every question raised here. Material stat corrections, substantive team explanations or the next completed games would justify a follow-up.
A conditional editorial assessment based on the evidence available at the review date, not a guaranteed outcome.
Live record
Updates to this story
No material updates yet.
Commentary
What we think
SearchTrends Daily’s view: credit the recovery without treating the opening three quarters as an acceptable blueprint. Texas demonstrated that an ugly start need not determine the result. The next improvement is to avoid needing an extraordinary finish against an opponent strong enough to punish that start.
For Ohio State, making the kicker the entire story would be too convenient. A made kick would have changed the final situation, but the offense and defense had other chances to protect the lead. The productive review asks why the advantage became fragile before the last possession. Which mattered more to you: Texas’s repeated scoring answers, or Ohio State’s inability to add a second-half touchdown?