SMU at Houston Week 9 College Football Matchup SMU at Houston Matchup - Week 9
Sat, Oct 30 2021 · Week 9 · 🏟 John O'Quinn Field at TDECU Stadium Houston, TX · Turf · 40,000 cap
SMU✈ 231 miSame TZ
Away
37 44
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
SMU
29
Houston
33
P&R Line Houston -4.5
P&R Total O/U 61.5
Confidence 90 High
Vegas SMU -1 · O/U 61.5
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Houston, while Game Control favors SMU. Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Houston wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
SMU wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
SMU -1
O/U 61.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
3 factors agree (PPA + PPO + Havoc) → Houston · 82.4% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 Houston 2nd straight Home Game
SMU 2021 Schedule
SMU's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4SMU vs Abilene Christian-32.0W56–966.0W56–9UY
Sat 9/11SMU vs North Texas-22.5W35–1275.5W35–12UY
Sat 9/18SMU at Louisiana Tech-11.0W39–3765.0W39–37ON
Sat 9/25SMU at TCU+8.0W42–3466.0W42–34OY
Sat 10/2SMU vs South Florida-21.5W41–1768.5W41–17UY
Sat 10/9SMU at Navy-13.5W31–2457.0W31–24UN
— Bye Week —
Thu 10/21SMU vs Tulane-14.0W55–2670.5W55–26OY
Sat 10/30SMU at Houston-1.0L37–4461.5L37–44ON
Sat 11/6SMU at Memphis-3.5L25–2872.0L25–28UN
Sat 11/13SMU vs UCF-7.0W55–2861.5W55–28OY
Sat 11/20SMU at Cincinnati+9.5L14–4865.5L14–48UN
Sat 11/27SMU vs Tulsa-6.0L31–3463.0L31–34ON
Wed 12/29SMU vs Virginia+2.571.0
Houston 2021 Schedule
Houston's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Houston vs Texas Tech-2.5L21–3863.0L21–38UN
Sat 9/11Houston at Rice-7.5W44–750.0W44–7OY
Sat 9/18Houston vs Grambling-41.0W45–051.5W45–0UY
Sat 9/25Houston vs Navy-20.0W28–2047.0W28–20ON
Fri 10/1Houston at Tulsa+3.0W45–1054.0W45–10OY
Thu 10/7Houston at Tulane-6.5W40–2260.0W40–22OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/23Houston vs East Carolina-13.5W31–2456.0W31–24UN
Sat 10/30Houston vs SMU+1.0W44–3761.5W44–37OY
Sat 11/6Houston at South Florida-13.5W54–4253.0W54–42ON
Sat 11/13Houston at Temple-26.0W37–852.5W37–8UY
Fri 11/19Houston vs Memphis-9.0W31–1359.5W31–13UY
Sat 11/27Houston at UConn-32.0W45–1754.5W45–17ON
Sat 12/4Houston at Cincinnati+10.5L20–3552.5L20–35ON
Tue 12/28Houston vs Auburn+2.0W17–1351.5W17–13UY
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2021 season
Houston PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Houston
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
SMU
+0.406
Houston
+0.496
Houston Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
SMU
+0.581
Houston
+0.808
Houston Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
SMU
0.164
Houston
0.214
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Houston Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
SMU
+7.762
Houston
+8.660
Houston Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
SMU
+0.826
Houston
+0.821
SMU Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
SMU
67.8
Houston
66.7
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Houston Edge
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
SMU Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
SMU
16.2
Houston
8.3
Offense Rating
SMU
26.0
Houston
19.8
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
SMU
9.9
Houston
11.5
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Houston Edge
Avg sequences created per game
SMU #6
1.71
Houston #28
2.00
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
SMU #110
0.29
Houston #67
0.67
Houston +0.29
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? SMU Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
SMU #1
79.6
Houston #1
76.0
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
SMU #27
10.3
Houston #9
11.7
SMU +3.6
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Houston
2 — 1 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Houston
56.7 — 21.6 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Houston won by 7
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
SMU
Sonny Dykes #1
25–14 (64%) · Yr 4 at school
OC Garrett Riley Yr 1 #1
DC Jim Leavitt Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Houston
Dana Holgorsen #1
9–14 (39%) · Yr 3 at school
OC Shannon Dawson Yr 1 #1
DC Doug Belk Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #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