Matchup Prediction
UTSA
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
UTSA entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
UTSA wins
Lean
Game Control
58.6%
UTSA wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
UT San Antonio -3.5
O/U 54.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UAB
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
UAB 2021 Schedule
UAB's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 9/1 | UAB vs Jacksonville State | -16.5W31–0 | 52.0 | W31–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | UAB at Georgia | +22.5L7–56 | 44.0 | L7–56 | O | N |
| Sat 9/18 | UAB at North Texas | -12.5W40–6 | 58.5 | W40–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | UAB at Tulane | +2.5W28–21 | 55.0 | W28–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | UAB vs Liberty | -3.0L12–36 | 49.0 | L12–36 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | UAB vs Florida Atlantic | -3.5W31–14 | 48.5 | W31–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | UAB at Southern Miss | -17.0W34–0 | 43.0 | W34–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | UAB vs Rice | -23.5L24–30 | 44.5 | L24–30 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/6 | UAB vs Louisiana Tech | -14.0W52–38 | 49.5 | W52–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | UAB at Marshall | +4.5W21–14 | 55.5 | W21–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | UAB at UTSA | +3.5L31–34 | 54.0 | L31–34 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | UAB vs UTEP | -13.5W42–25 | 49.5 | W42–25 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/18 | UAB vs BYU | +7.0W31–28 | 54.5 | W31–28 | O | Y |
UTSA 2021 Schedule
UTSA's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | UTSA at Illinois | +4.5W37–30 | 52.0 | W37–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | UTSA vs Lamar | -38.0W54–0 | 65.0 | W54–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | UTSA vs Middle Tennessee | -11.5W27–13 | 60.0 | W27–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | UTSA at Memphis | +3.0W31–28 | 66.5 | W31–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | UTSA vs UNLV | -21.5W24–17 | 55.5 | W24–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | UTSA at Western Kentucky | +3.5W52–46 | 71.0 | W52–46 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | UTSA vs Rice | -17.0W45–0 | 53.0 | W45–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | UTSA at Louisiana Tech | -5.5W45–16 | 59.5 | W45–16 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/6 | UTSA at UTEP | -12.0W44–23 | 53.5 | W44–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | UTSA vs Southern Miss | -32.5W27–17 | 54.0 | W27–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | UTSA vs UAB | -3.5W34–31 | 54.0 | W34–31 | O | N |
| Sat 11/27 | UTSA at North Texas | -8.5L23–45 | 60.0 | L23–45 | O | N |
| Fri 12/3 | UTSA vs Western Kentucky | +3.0W49–41 | 74.5 | W49–41 | O | Y |
| Tue 12/21 | UTSA vs San Diego State | +3.0L24–38 | 48.0 | L24–38 | O | 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
Both Agree
→ UAB
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?
UTSA Edge
UTSA +0.90
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UTSA Edge
UTSA +6.6
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on UTSA. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
UAB
Bill Clark #1
42–23 (65%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 1
#1
DC
David Reeves
Yr 1
#1
UTSA
Jeff Traylor #1
10–5 (67%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Barry Lunney Jr.
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jess Loepp / Rod Wright
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 ✓