Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors UTEP,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
UTEP wins
Lean
Game Control
67.1%
UAB wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
UAB -13.5
O/U 49.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UAB
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ 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 |
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 |
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
→ UAB
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UAB
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?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +0.19
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 11 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UAB Edge
UAB +14.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 67.1% of games historically
Based on 11 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
UAB
Bill Clark #1
42–23 (65%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 1
#1
DC
David Reeves
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 ✓