UTEP at Southern Miss Week 6 College Football Matchup UTEP at Southern Miss Matchup - Week 6
Sat, Oct 9 2021 · Week 6 · 🏟 M. M. Roberts Stadium Hattiesburg, MS · Turf · 36,000 cap
UTEP✈ 1,010 mi+1 hr TZ
Away
26 13
Final
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
UTEP
27
Southern Miss
20
P&R Line UTEP -7.5
P&R Total O/U 46.5
Confidence 86 High
Vegas UTEP -1 · O/U 46.5
Matchup Prediction
UTEP has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor UTEP entering this game.
Momentum Control
73.7%
UTEP wins
Solid
Game Control
75.9%
UTEP wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
UTEP -1
O/U 46.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UTEP · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
UTEP 2021 Schedule
UTEP's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 8/28UTEP at New Mexico State-9.5W30–359.0W30–3UY
Sat 9/4UTEP vs Bethune-Cookman-20.5W38–2852.5W38–28ON
Fri 9/10UTEP at Boise State+25.0L13–5456.0L13–54ON
— Bye Week —
Sat 9/25UTEP vs New Mexico+2.5W20–1353.5W20–13UY
Sat 10/2UTEP vs Old Dominion-5.5W28–2148.5W28–21OY
Sat 10/9UTEP at Southern Miss-1.0W26–1346.5W26–13UY
Sat 10/16UTEP vs Louisiana Tech+6.5W19–355.5W19–3UY
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/30UTEP at Florida Atlantic+11.0L25–2849.0L25–28OY
Sat 11/6UTEP vs UTSA+12.0L23–4453.5L23–44ON
Sat 11/13UTEP at North Texas+1.0L17–2055.5L17–20UN
Sat 11/20UTEP vs Rice-9.0W38–2847.0W38–28OY
Fri 11/26UTEP at UAB+13.5L25–4249.5L25–42ON
Sat 12/18UTEP vs Fresno State+11.5L24–3151.5L24–31OY
Southern Miss 2021 Schedule
Southern Miss's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Southern Miss at South Alabama+2.0L7–3156.5L7–31UN
Sat 9/11Southern Miss vs Grambling-23.0W37–047.5W37–0UY
Sat 9/18Southern Miss vs Troy+11.0L9–2149.0L9–21UN
Sat 9/25Southern Miss at Alabama+45.0L14–6357.5L14–63ON
Sat 10/2Southern Miss at Rice+1.5L19–2445.0L19–24UN
Sat 10/9Southern Miss vs UTEP+1.0L13–2646.5L13–26UN
Sat 10/16Southern Miss vs UAB+17.0L0–3443.0L0–34UN
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/30Southern Miss at Middle Tennessee+12.5L10–3547.0L10–35UN
Sat 11/6Southern Miss vs North Texas+5.5L14–3849.0L14–38ON
Sat 11/13Southern Miss at UTSA+32.5L17–2754.0L17–27UY
Fri 11/19Southern Miss at Louisiana Tech+15.0W35–1947.5W35–19OY
Sat 11/27Southern Miss vs Florida International-14.5W37–1745.5W37–17OY
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2021 season
UTEP 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
→ UTEP
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
UTEP
+0.476
Southern Miss
+0.158
UTEP Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
UTEP
+0.842
Southern Miss
+0.450
UTEP Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
UTEP
0.175
Southern Miss
0.189
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Southern Miss Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
UTEP
+6.638
Southern Miss
+6.343
UTEP Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
UTEP
+0.798
Southern Miss
+0.745
UTEP Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
UTEP
73.0
Southern Miss
70.9
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Southern Miss 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
Southern Miss Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
UTEP
-16.2
Southern Miss
-13.0
Offense Rating
UTEP
4.4
Southern Miss
8.0
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
UTEP
20.6
Southern Miss
21.0
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? UTEP Edge
Avg sequences created per game
UTEP #106
1.50
Southern Miss #124
0.25
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
UTEP #89
0.75
Southern Miss #117
2.00
UTEP +1.25
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 73.7% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? UTEP Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
UTEP #1
57.7
Southern Miss #1
31.2
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
UTEP #71
32.2
Southern Miss #104
60.5
UTEP +26.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 5 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

Both metrics agree on UTEP 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
UTEP
Dana Dimel #1
7–28 (20%) · Yr 4 at school
OC Dave Warner Yr 1 #1
DC Bradley Dale Peveto Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Southern Miss
Will Hall #1
1–2 (33%) · Yr 1 at school
OC Cayden Cochran Yr 1 #1
DC Austin Armstrong 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