Sat, Oct 30 2021
·
Week 9
·
🏟 FAU Stadium
Boca Raton, FL
·
Turf
·
30,000 cap
UTEP✈ 1,633 mi+2 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Florida Atlantic,
while Game Control favors UTEP.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Florida Atlantic wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
UTEP wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Florida Atlantic -11
O/U 49.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
UTEP 2021 Schedule
UTEP's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/28 | UTEP at New Mexico State | -9.5W30–3 | 59.0 | W30–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/4 | UTEP vs Bethune-Cookman | -20.5W38–28 | 52.5 | W38–28 | O | N |
| Fri 9/10 | UTEP at Boise State | +25.0L13–54 | 56.0 | L13–54 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/25 | UTEP vs New Mexico | +2.5W20–13 | 53.5 | W20–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | UTEP vs Old Dominion | -5.5W28–21 | 48.5 | W28–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | UTEP at Southern Miss | -1.0W26–13 | 46.5 | W26–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | UTEP vs Louisiana Tech | +6.5W19–3 | 55.5 | W19–3 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/30 | UTEP at Florida Atlantic | +11.0L25–28 | 49.0 | L25–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | UTEP vs UTSA | +12.0L23–44 | 53.5 | L23–44 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | UTEP at North Texas | +1.0L17–20 | 55.5 | L17–20 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | UTEP vs Rice | -9.0W38–28 | 47.0 | W38–28 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | UTEP at UAB | +13.5L25–42 | 49.5 | L25–42 | O | N |
| Sat 12/18 | UTEP vs Fresno State | +11.5L24–31 | 51.5 | L24–31 | O | Y |
Florida Atlantic 2021 Schedule
Florida Atlantic's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Florida Atlantic at Florida | +23.5L14–35 | 51.5 | L14–35 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Florida Atlantic vs Georgia Southern | -6.5W38–6 | 48.5 | W38–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Florida Atlantic vs Fordham | -31.0W45–14 | 51.5 | W45–14 | O | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Florida Atlantic at Air Force | +3.5L7–31 | 54.0 | L7–31 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Florida Atlantic vs Florida International | -10.5W58–21 | 52.0 | W58–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | Florida Atlantic at UAB | +3.5L14–31 | 48.5 | L14–31 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/21 | Florida Atlantic at Charlotte | -6.5W38–9 | 58.0 | W38–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Florida Atlantic vs UTEP | -11.0W28–25 | 49.0 | W28–25 | O | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Florida Atlantic vs Marshall | +1.0L13–28 | 58.0 | L13–28 | U | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Florida Atlantic at Old Dominion | -6.5L16–30 | 48.0 | L16–30 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Florida Atlantic at Western Kentucky | +11.5L17–52 | 64.0 | L17–52 | O | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Florida Atlantic vs Middle Tennessee | -3.5L17–27 | 49.5 | L17–27 | U | N |
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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Florida Atlantic Edge
Florida Atlantic +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +18.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 7 games 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
UTEP
Dana Dimel #1
7–28 (20%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Dave Warner
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bradley Dale Peveto
Yr 1
#1
Florida Atlantic
Willie Taggart #1
7–5 (58%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Mike Johnson
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Stoops
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 ✓