Matchup Prediction
UTEP
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
UTEP entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
UTEP wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
UTEP wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
UTEP -9
O/U 47.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UTEP
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Rice 2021 Schedule
Rice's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Rice at Arkansas | +19.5L17–38 | 50.0 | L17–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/11 | Rice vs Houston | +7.5L7–44 | 50.0 | L7–44 | O | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Rice at Texas | +26.0L0–58 | 52.0 | L0–58 | O | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Rice vs Texas Southern | -37.0W48–34 | 53.5 | W48–34 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Rice vs Southern Miss | -1.5W24–19 | 45.0 | W24–19 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/16 | Rice at UTSA | +17.0L0–45 | 53.0 | L0–45 | U | N |
| Sat 10/23 | Rice at UAB | +23.5W30–24 | 44.5 | W30–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Rice vs North Texas | -1.5L24–30 | 55.0 | L24–30 | U | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Rice at Charlotte | +6.5L24–31 | 51.5 | L24–31 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Rice vs Western Kentucky | +19.0L21–42 | 61.0 | L21–42 | O | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Rice at UTEP | +9.0L28–38 | 47.0 | L28–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Rice vs Louisiana Tech | +3.5W35–31 | 52.5 | W35–31 | O | Y |
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 |
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
Both Agree
→ UTEP
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?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +22.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UTEP
3 — 1 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
UTEP
69.5 — 16.4 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
UTEP won by 10
✓ Model called it
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
Rice
Mike Bloomgren #1
7–26 (21%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Marques Tuiasosopo
Yr 1
#1
DC
Brian Smith
Yr 1
#1
UTEP
Dana Dimel #1
7–28 (20%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Dave Warner
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bradley Dale Peveto
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 ✓