Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
—
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Rutgers -14
O/U 52.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Rutgers
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Temple 2021 Schedule
Temple's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Temple at Rutgers | +14.0L14–61 | 52.0 | L14–61 | O | N |
| Sat 9/11 | Temple at Akron | -6.5W45–24 | 51.5 | W45–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Temple vs Boston College | +15.0L3–28 | 55.5 | L3–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Temple vs Wagner | -36.5W41–7 | 54.5 | W41–7 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Temple vs Memphis | +11.0W34–31 | 58.5 | W34–31 | O | Y |
| Fri 10/8 | Temple at Cincinnati | +30.0L3–52 | 52.5 | L3–52 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/23 | Temple at South Florida | +1.5L14–34 | 54.5 | L14–34 | U | N |
| Sat 10/30 | Temple vs UCF | +12.0L7–49 | 52.0 | L7–49 | O | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Temple at East Carolina | +15.5L3–45 | 52.0 | L3–45 | U | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Temple vs Houston | +26.0L8–37 | 52.5 | L8–37 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Temple at Tulsa | +22.0L10–44 | 50.5 | L10–44 | O | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Temple vs Navy | +13.5L14–38 | 42.0 | L14–38 | O | N |
Rutgers 2021 Schedule
Rutgers's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Rutgers vs Temple | -14.0W61–14 | 52.0 | W61–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Rutgers at Syracuse | -2.5W17–7 | 50.5 | W17–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Rutgers vs Delaware | -20.0W45–13 | 45.0 | W45–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Rutgers at Michigan | +20.0L13–20 | 50.0 | L13–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | Rutgers vs Ohio State | +15.0L13–52 | 58.0 | L13–52 | O | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Rutgers vs Michigan State | +4.5L13–31 | 50.0 | L13–31 | U | N |
| Sat 10/16 | Rutgers at Northwestern | -2.5L7–21 | 45.0 | L7–21 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/30 | Rutgers at Illinois | -1.5W20–14 | 41.5 | W20–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Rutgers vs Wisconsin | +13.0L3–52 | 37.5 | L3–52 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Rutgers at Indiana | +6.5W38–3 | 42.5 | W38–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Rutgers at Penn State | +14.0L0–28 | 44.5 | L0–28 | U | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Rutgers vs Maryland | -2.0L16–40 | 53.0 | L16–40 | O | N |
| Fri 12/31 | Rutgers vs Wake Forest | +17.0L10–38 | 63.0 | L10–38 | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Rutgers
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Rutgers
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Rutgers
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?
Temple Edge
Temple +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Temple Edge
Temple +0.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Rutgers
3 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Rutgers
96.9 — 2.1 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Rutgers won by 47
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Rutgers, but the GC edge is small. When metrics agree but GC is near-neutral, the agreed-upon team has covered only 46.7% of the time historically (n=224) — potentially a fade signal.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Temple
Rod Carey #1
10–13 (44%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Mike Uremovich
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jeff Knowles
Yr 1
#1
Rutgers
Greg Schiano #1
6–6 (50%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Sean Gleeson
Yr 1
#1
DC
Robb Smith
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 ✓