Sat, Oct 2 2021
·
Week 5
·
🏟 Notre Dame Stadium
Notre Dame, IN
·
Turf
·
80,795 cap
Cincinnati✈ 199 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Cincinnati
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Cincinnati entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Cincinnati -2.5
O/U 50.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Cincinnati
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Cincinnati 2021 Schedule
Cincinnati's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Cincinnati vs Miami (OH) | -22.5W49–14 | 49.0 | W49–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Cincinnati vs Murray State | -36.5W42–7 | 51.5 | W42–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Cincinnati at Indiana | -4.0W38–24 | 50.0 | W38–24 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/2 | Cincinnati at Notre Dame | -2.5W24–13 | 50.0 | W24–13 | U | Y |
| Fri 10/8 | Cincinnati vs Temple | -30.0W52–3 | 52.5 | W52–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | Cincinnati vs UCF | -21.5W56–21 | 56.0 | W56–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | Cincinnati at Navy | -28.5W27–20 | 49.5 | W27–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/30 | Cincinnati at Tulane | -27.5W31–12 | 61.5 | W31–12 | U | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Cincinnati vs Tulsa | -22.5W28–20 | 56.0 | W28–20 | U | N |
| Fri 11/12 | Cincinnati at South Florida | -24.5W45–28 | 58.5 | W45–28 | O | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Cincinnati vs SMU | -9.5W48–14 | 65.5 | W48–14 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | Cincinnati at East Carolina | -14.5W35–13 | 56.5 | W35–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 12/4 | Cincinnati vs Houston | -10.5W35–20 | 52.5 | W35–20 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Cincinnati vs Alabama | +13.0L6–27 | 57.5 | L6–27 | U | N |
Notre Dame 2021 Schedule
Notre Dame's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 9/5 | Notre Dame at Florida State | -7.0W41–38 | 53.5 | W41–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/11 | Notre Dame vs Toledo | -16.5W32–29 | 55.0 | W32–29 | O | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Notre Dame vs Purdue | -7.5W27–13 | 58.0 | W27–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Notre Dame vs Wisconsin | +6.0W41–13 | 43.5 | W41–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | Notre Dame vs Cincinnati | +2.5L13–24 | 50.0 | L13–24 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Notre Dame at Virginia Tech | +1.0W32–29 | 46.5 | W32–29 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/23 | Notre Dame vs USC | -8.0W31–16 | 59.5 | W31–16 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Notre Dame vs North Carolina | -3.5W44–34 | 63.0 | W44–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Notre Dame vs Navy | -21.0W34–6 | 47.5 | W34–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Notre Dame at Virginia | -7.5W28–3 | 62.5 | W28–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Notre Dame vs Georgia Tech | -18.0W55–0 | 57.5 | W55–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Notre Dame at Stanford | -20.5W45–14 | 53.0 | W45–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 1/1 | Notre Dame vs Oklahoma State | +1.5L35–37 | 45.5 | L35–37 | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Cincinnati
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Cincinnati
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Cincinnati
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?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +0.25
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +10.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Cincinnati. 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
Cincinnati
Luke Fickell #1
38–14 (73%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Mike Denbrock
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Tressel
Yr 1
#1
Notre Dame
Brian Kelly #1
84–38 (69%)
· Yr 12 at school
OC
Tommy Rees
Yr 1
#1
DC
Marcus Freeman
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 ✓