Matchup Prediction
Wisconsin
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Wisconsin entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Wisconsin wins
Lean
Game Control
75.9%
Wisconsin wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
Wisconsin -13
O/U 37.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Wisconsin
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Wisconsin 2021 Schedule
Wisconsin's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Wisconsin vs Penn State | -5.5L10–16 | 48.5 | L10–16 | U | N |
| Sat 9/11 | Wisconsin vs Eastern Michigan | -26.0W34–7 | 52.0 | W34–7 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/25 | Wisconsin vs Notre Dame | -6.0L13–41 | 43.5 | L13–41 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Wisconsin vs Michigan | -2.0L17–38 | 43.5 | L17–38 | O | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Wisconsin at Illinois | -12.5W24–0 | 42.0 | W24–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | Wisconsin vs Army | -14.0W20–14 | 37.5 | W20–14 | U | N |
| Sat 10/23 | Wisconsin at Purdue | -3.5W30–13 | 41.0 | W30–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Wisconsin vs Iowa | -3.0W27–7 | 35.5 | W27–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Wisconsin at Rutgers | -13.0W52–3 | 37.5 | W52–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Wisconsin vs Northwestern | -26.0W35–7 | 41.5 | W35–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Wisconsin vs Nebraska | -10.0W35–28 | 43.5 | W35–28 | O | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Wisconsin at Minnesota | -7.0L13–23 | 39.0 | L13–23 | U | N |
| Thu 12/30 | Wisconsin vs Arizona State | -8.5W20–13 | 42.5 | W20–13 | U | 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
→ Wisconsin
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Wisconsin
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Wisconsin
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?
Wisconsin Edge
Wisconsin +0.05
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Wisconsin Edge
Wisconsin +21.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Wisconsin 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
Wisconsin
Paul Chryst #1
57–20 (74%)
· Yr 7 at school
OC
Joe Rudolph
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jim Leonhard
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: 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 ✓