Middle Tennessee at UTSA Week 3 College Football Matchup Middle Tennessee at UTSA Matchup - Week 3
Sat, Sep 18 2021 · Week 3 · 🏟 Alamodome San Antonio, TX · Turf · 65,000 cap
Middle Tennessee✈ 832 miSame TZ
13 27
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Middle Tennessee
23
UTSA -11.5
UTSA
36
P&R Line UTSA -13
P&R Total O/U 59.5
Confidence 86 High
Vegas UT San Antonio -11.5 · O/U 60.0
Matchup Prediction
UTSA has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor UTSA entering this game.
Momentum Control
78.1%
UTSA wins
Strong
Game Control
76%
UTSA wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
UT San Antonio -11.5
O/U 60.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UTSA · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 UTSA 2nd straight Home Game 🚌 Middle Tennessee 2nd straight Road Game
Middle Tennessee 2021 Schedule
Middle Tennessee's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Middle Tennessee vs Monmouth-8.5W50–1558.5W50–15OY
Sat 9/11Middle Tennessee at Virginia Tech+20.0L14–3555.0L14–35UN
Sat 9/18Middle Tennessee at UTSA+11.5L13–2760.0L13–27UN
Fri 9/24Middle Tennessee at Charlotte+2.5L39–4255.5L39–42ON
Sat 10/2Middle Tennessee vs Marshall+11.0W34–2866.0W34–28UY
Sat 10/9Middle Tennessee at Liberty+20.0L13–4159.0L13–41UN
— Bye Week —
Fri 10/22Middle Tennessee at UConn-14.0W44–1354.0W44–13OY
Sat 10/30Middle Tennessee vs Southern Miss-12.5W35–1047.0W35–10UY
Sat 11/6Middle Tennessee at Western Kentucky+17.5L21–4866.5L21–48ON
Sat 11/13Middle Tennessee vs Florida International-10.5W50–1054.0W50–10OY
Sat 11/20Middle Tennessee vs Old Dominion-3.0L17–2448.5L17–24UN
Sat 11/27Middle Tennessee at Florida Atlantic+3.5W27–1749.5W27–17UY
Fri 12/17Middle Tennessee vs Toledo+10.0W31–2450.0W31–24OY
UTSA 2021 Schedule
UTSA's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4UTSA at Illinois+4.5W37–3052.0W37–30OY
Sat 9/11UTSA vs Lamar-38.0W54–065.0W54–0UY
Sat 9/18UTSA vs Middle Tennessee-11.5W27–1360.0W27–13UY
Sat 9/25UTSA at Memphis+3.0W31–2866.5W31–28UY
Sat 10/2UTSA vs UNLV-21.5W24–1755.5W24–17UN
Sat 10/9UTSA at Western Kentucky+3.5W52–4671.0W52–46OY
Sat 10/16UTSA vs Rice-17.0W45–053.0W45–0UY
Sat 10/23UTSA at Louisiana Tech-5.5W45–1659.5W45–16OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/6UTSA at UTEP-12.0W44–2353.5W44–23OY
Sat 11/13UTSA vs Southern Miss-32.5W27–1754.0W27–17UN
Sat 11/20UTSA vs UAB-3.5W34–3154.0W34–31ON
Sat 11/27UTSA at North Texas-8.5L23–4560.0L23–45ON
Fri 12/3UTSA vs Western Kentucky+3.0W49–4174.5W49–41OY
Tue 12/21UTSA vs San Diego State+3.0L24–3848.0L24–38ON
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2021 season
UTSA PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ UTSA
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Middle Tennessee
+0.347
UTSA
+0.427
UTSA Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Middle Tennessee
+0.581
UTSA
+0.673
UTSA Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Middle Tennessee
0.276
UTSA
0.183
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Middle Tennessee Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Middle Tennessee
+7.986
UTSA
+8.022
UTSA Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Middle Tennessee
+0.811
UTSA
+0.873
UTSA Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Middle Tennessee
68.6
UTSA
69.5
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Middle 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
UTSA Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Middle Tennessee
-17.5
UTSA
-0.2
Offense Rating
Middle Tennessee
5.5
UTSA
16.4
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Middle Tennessee
22.9
UTSA
16.6
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? UTSA Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Middle Tennessee #104
1.00
UTSA #32
3.50
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Middle Tennessee #76
1.50
UTSA #24
0.00
UTSA +2.50
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 78.1% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? UTSA Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Middle Tennessee #1
41.5
UTSA #1
83.8
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Middle Tennessee #86
50.5
UTSA #21
7.1
UTSA +42.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

Both metrics agree on UTSA with a large edge. Historically, dominant teams like this are fully priced into the spread — the agreed-upon team covers just 50.2% of the time. The metrics predict game control better than they beat the number.

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

Coaching Matchup
Middle Tennessee
Rick Stockstill #1
95–94 (50%) · Yr 16 at school
OC Brent Dearmon Yr 1 #1
DC Scott Shafer Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
UTSA
Jeff Traylor #1
10–5 (67%) · Yr 2 at school
OC Barry Lunney Jr. Yr 1 #1
DC Jess Loepp / Rod Wright 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