Pittsburgh at Tennessee Week 2 College Football Matchup Pittsburgh at Tennessee Matchup - Week 2
Sat, Sep 11 2021 · Week 2 · 🏟 Neyland Stadium Knoxville, TN · Turf · 102,455 cap
Pittsburgh✈ 375 miSame TZ
41 34
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Pittsburgh
30
Tennessee
32
P&R Line Tennessee -2.5
P&R Total O/U 61.5
Confidence 90 High
Vegas Pittsburgh -3.5 · O/U 56.0
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Pittsburgh, while Game Control favors Tennessee. Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
73.7%
Pittsburgh wins
Solid
Game Control
50.6%
Tennessee wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Pittsburgh -3.5
O/U 56.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Pittsburgh · 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 Tennessee 2nd straight Home Game
Pittsburgh 2021 Schedule
Pittsburgh's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Pittsburgh vs Massachusetts-38.0W51–756.0W51–7OY
Sat 9/11Pittsburgh at Tennessee-3.5W41–3456.0W41–34OY
Sat 9/18Pittsburgh vs Western Michigan-14.0L41–4459.0L41–44ON
Sat 9/25Pittsburgh vs New Hampshire-29.0W77–753.0W77–7OY
Sat 10/2Pittsburgh at Georgia Tech-3.0W52–2157.5W52–21OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/16Pittsburgh at Virginia Tech-6.0W28–755.5W28–7UY
Sat 10/23Pittsburgh vs Clemson-3.5W27–1747.0W27–17UY
Sat 10/30Pittsburgh vs Miami-9.5L34–3861.0L34–38ON
Sat 11/6Pittsburgh at Duke-21.0W54–2964.5W54–29OY
Thu 11/11Pittsburgh vs North Carolina-6.5W30–2372.0W30–23UY
Sat 11/20Pittsburgh vs Virginia-12.5W48–3869.0W48–38ON
Sat 11/27Pittsburgh at Syracuse-12.0W31–1458.5W31–14UY
Sat 12/4Pittsburgh vs Wake Forest-3.5W45–2172.5W45–21UY
Thu 12/30Pittsburgh vs Michigan State+3.5L21–3155.0L21–31UN
Tennessee 2021 Schedule
Tennessee's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Thu 9/2Tennessee vs Bowling Green-37.0W38–660.5W38–6UN
Sat 9/11Tennessee vs Pittsburgh+3.5L34–4156.0L34–41ON
Sat 9/18Tennessee vs Tennessee Tech-38.0W56–053.0W56–0OY
Sat 9/25Tennessee at Florida+19.0L14–3865.0L14–38UN
Sat 10/2Tennessee at Missouri+2.5W62–2466.5W62–24OY
Sat 10/9Tennessee vs South Carolina-10.5W45–2057.0W45–20OY
Sat 10/16Tennessee vs Ole Miss+1.0L26–3182.0L26–31UN
Sat 10/23Tennessee at Alabama+24.5L24–5268.0L24–52ON
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/6Tennessee at Kentucky-1.0W45–4257.5W45–42OY
Sat 11/13Tennessee vs Georgia+19.0L17–4156.0L17–41ON
Sat 11/20Tennessee vs South Alabama-28.5W60–1461.5W60–14OY
Sat 11/27Tennessee vs Vanderbilt-33.0W45–2165.0W45–21ON
Thu 12/30Tennessee vs Purdue-8.0L45–4867.0L45–48ON
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2021 season
Pittsburgh PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Pittsburgh
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Pittsburgh
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Pittsburgh
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Pittsburgh
+0.521
Tennessee
+0.408
Pittsburgh Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Pittsburgh
+0.670
Tennessee
+0.557
Pittsburgh Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Pittsburgh
0.199
Tennessee
0.179
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Pittsburgh Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Pittsburgh
+8.748
Tennessee
+7.992
Pittsburgh Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Pittsburgh
+0.894
Tennessee
+0.879
Pittsburgh Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Pittsburgh
69.9
Tennessee
69.2
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Tennessee Edge
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2021 season · Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Tennessee Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Pittsburgh
9.1
Tennessee
14.6
Offense Rating
Pittsburgh
19.3
Tennessee
21.0
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Pittsburgh
10.2
Tennessee
6.4
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Pittsburgh Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Pittsburgh #7
3.00
Tennessee #44
2.00
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Pittsburgh #12
0.00
Tennessee #125
1.00
Pittsburgh +1.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 73.7% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? Tennessee Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Pittsburgh #1
95.5
Tennessee #1
97.8
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Pittsburgh #7
0.3
Tennessee #48
0.2
Tennessee +2.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

CSS and GC disagree on this matchup. When the metrics split, historical cover rates are essentially random — treat this as a coin flip against the spread.

ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.

Coaching Matchup
Pittsburgh
Pat Narduzzi #1
44–35 (56%) · Yr 7 at school
OC Mark Whipple Yr 1 #1
DC Randy Bates Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Tennessee
Josh Heupel #1
2–1 (67%) · Yr 1 at school
OC Alex Golesh Yr 1 #1
DC Tim Banks Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games.

Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself