Sat, Sep 25 2021
·
Week 4
·
🏟 Kelly/Shorts Stadium
Mount Pleasant, MI
·
Turf
·
32,885 cap
Florida International✈ 1,256 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Central Michigan,
while Game Control favors Florida International.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Central Michigan wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Florida International wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Central Michigan -12
O/U 55.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Central Michigan
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Florida International 2021 Schedule
Florida International's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 9/2 | Florida International vs Long Island University | -35.0W48–10 | 49.0 | W48–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Florida International vs Texas State | -2.0L17–23 | 55.5 | L17–23 | U | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Florida International at Texas Tech | +20.5L21–54 | 54.0 | L21–54 | O | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Florida International at Central Michigan | +12.0L27–31 | 55.0 | L27–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | Florida International at Florida Atlantic | +10.5L21–58 | 52.0 | L21–58 | O | N |
| Fri 10/8 | Florida International vs Charlotte | +3.5L33–45 | 61.0 | L33–45 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/23 | Florida International vs Western Kentucky | +16.5L19–34 | 78.0 | L19–34 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Florida International at Marshall | +21.5L0–38 | 64.0 | L0–38 | U | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Florida International vs Old Dominion | +3.0L24–47 | 50.0 | L24–47 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Florida International at Middle Tennessee | +10.5L10–50 | 54.0 | L10–50 | O | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Florida International vs North Texas | +10.0L7–49 | 57.0 | L7–49 | U | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Florida International at Southern Miss | +14.5L17–37 | 45.5 | L17–37 | O | N |
Central Michigan 2021 Schedule
Central Michigan's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Central Michigan at Missouri | +13.5L24–34 | 59.0 | L24–34 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Central Michigan vs Robert Morris | -37.5W45–0 | 53.5 | W45–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Central Michigan at LSU | +19.5L21–49 | 61.0 | L21–49 | O | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Central Michigan vs Florida International | -12.0W31–27 | 55.0 | W31–27 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Central Michigan at Miami (OH) | -2.5L17–28 | 56.5 | L17–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Central Michigan at Ohio | -5.0W30–27 | 58.0 | W30–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/16 | Central Michigan vs Toledo | +5.0W26–23 | 53.0 | W26–23 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | Central Michigan vs Northern Illinois | -6.0L38–39 | 56.0 | L38–39 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 11/3 | Central Michigan at Western Michigan | +9.0W42–30 | 64.5 | W42–30 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/10 | Central Michigan vs Kent State | -2.5W54–30 | 76.5 | W54–30 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/17 | Central Michigan at Ball State | -2.5W37–17 | 57.0 | W37–17 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | Central Michigan vs Eastern Michigan | -8.5W31–10 | 64.0 | W31–10 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Central Michigan vs Washington State | +5.5W24–21 | 56.0 | W24–21 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Central Michigan vs Boise State | +7.5 | 55.5 | — | — | — |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2021 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Central Michigan
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Central Michigan
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Central Michigan
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
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
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences
Who builds scoring momentum?
Central Michigan Edge
Central Michigan +0.17
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Florida International Edge
Florida International +5.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Florida International
34.7 — 45.6 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Central Michigan won by 4
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
Florida International
Butch Davis #1
24–23 (51%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Andrew Breiner
Yr 1
#1
DC
Everett Withers
Yr 1
#1
Central Michigan
Jim McElwain #1
12–11 (52%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Kevin Barbay
Yr 1
#1
DC
Robb Akey
Yr 1
#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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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 ✓
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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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 ✓