Sat, Oct 2 2021
·
Week 5
·
🏟 Spartan Stadium
East Lansing, MI
·
Turf
·
75,005 cap
Western Kentucky✈ 410 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Western Kentucky,
while Game Control favors Michigan State.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
73.7%
Western Kentucky wins
Solid
Game Control
76%
Michigan State wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Michigan State -10.5
O/U 66.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Western Kentucky
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Western Kentucky 2021 Schedule
Western Kentucky's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 9/2 | Western Kentucky vs UT Martin | -24.0W59–21 | 58.5 | W59–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Western Kentucky at Army | +6.0L35–38 | 52.0 | L35–38 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/25 | Western Kentucky vs Indiana | +9.5L31–33 | 62.5 | L31–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | Western Kentucky at Michigan State | +10.5L31–48 | 66.5 | L31–48 | O | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Western Kentucky vs UTSA | -3.5L46–52 | 71.0 | L46–52 | O | N |
| Sat 10/16 | Western Kentucky at Old Dominion | -13.5W43–20 | 66.5 | W43–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | Western Kentucky at Florida International | -16.5W34–19 | 78.0 | W34–19 | U | N |
| Sat 10/30 | Western Kentucky vs Charlotte | -19.5W45–13 | 71.5 | W45–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Western Kentucky vs Middle Tennessee | -17.5W48–21 | 66.5 | W48–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Western Kentucky at Rice | -19.0W42–21 | 61.0 | W42–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Western Kentucky vs Florida Atlantic | -11.5W52–17 | 64.0 | W52–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Western Kentucky at Marshall | -1.0W53–21 | 75.5 | W53–21 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/3 | Western Kentucky at UTSA | -3.0L41–49 | 74.5 | L41–49 | O | N |
| Sat 12/18 | Western Kentucky vs App State | +3.0W59–38 | 67.0 | W59–38 | O | Y |
Michigan State 2021 Schedule
Michigan State's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 9/3 | Michigan State at Northwestern | +3.0W38–21 | 45.5 | W38–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Michigan State vs Youngstown State | -28.5W42–14 | 52.0 | W42–14 | O | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Michigan State at Miami | +7.0W38–17 | 57.5 | W38–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Michigan State vs Nebraska | -3.5W23–20 | 55.0 | W23–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Michigan State vs Western Kentucky | -10.5W48–31 | 66.5 | W48–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | Michigan State at Rutgers | -4.5W31–13 | 50.0 | W31–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | Michigan State at Indiana | -3.5W20–15 | 48.5 | W20–15 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/30 | Michigan State vs Michigan | +4.0W37–33 | 50.5 | W37–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Michigan State at Purdue | -2.5L29–40 | 53.0 | L29–40 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Michigan State vs Maryland | -11.5W40–21 | 60.0 | W40–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Michigan State at Ohio State | +19.5L7–56 | 70.5 | L7–56 | U | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Michigan State vs Penn State | +3.5W30–27 | 51.5 | W30–27 | O | Y |
| Thu 12/30 | Michigan State vs Pittsburgh | -3.5W31–21 | 55.0 | W31–21 | U | Y |
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
→ Western Kentucky
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Western Kentucky
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Western Kentucky
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?
Western Kentucky Edge
Western Kentucky +1.67
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 73.7% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Michigan State Edge
Michigan State +38.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Western Kentucky
1 — 2 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Michigan State
95.7 — 4.0 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Michigan State won by 17
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
Western Kentucky
Tyson Helton #1
15–12 (56%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Zach Kittley
Yr 1
#1
DC
Maurice Crum Jr.
Yr 1
#1
Michigan State
Mel Tucker #1
5–5 (50%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Jay Johnson
Yr 1
#1
DC
Scottie Hazelton
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: 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 ✓
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 ✓