Thu, Nov 11 2021
·
Week 11
·
🏟 Kelly/Shorts Stadium
Mount Pleasant, MI
·
Turf
·
32,885 cap
Kent State✈ 244 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Kent State
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Kent State entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Kent State wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
Kent State wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Central Michigan -2.5
O/U 76.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Central Michigan
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Kent State 2021 Schedule
Kent State's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Kent State at Texas A&M | +29.5L10–41 | 67.0 | L10–41 | U | N |
| Sat 9/11 | Kent State vs VMI | -19.0W60–10 | 73.0 | W60–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Kent State at Iowa | +22.0L7–30 | 55.5 | L7–30 | U | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Kent State at Maryland | +13.0L16–37 | 71.5 | L16–37 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Kent State vs Bowling Green | -16.5W27–20 | 56.0 | W27–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Kent State vs Buffalo | -7.0W48–38 | 66.0 | W48–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | Kent State at Western Michigan | +7.0L31–64 | 68.5 | L31–64 | O | N |
| Sat 10/23 | Kent State at Ohio | -5.0W34–27 | 68.5 | W34–27 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 11/3 | Kent State vs Northern Illinois | -3.5W52–47 | 72.0 | W52–47 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/10 | Kent State at Central Michigan | +2.5L30–54 | 76.5 | L30–54 | O | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Kent State at Akron | -13.5W38–0 | 72.5 | W38–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Kent State vs Miami (OH) | +1.0W48–47 | 68.0 | W48–47 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/4 | Kent State vs Northern Illinois | -3.5L23–41 | 75.5 | L23–41 | U | N |
| Tue 12/21 | Kent State vs Wyoming | +3.0L38–52 | 61.0 | L38–52 | O | N |
Central Michigan 2021 Schedule
Central Michigan's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Central Michigan at Missouri | +13.5L24–34 | 59.0 | L24–34 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Central Michigan vs Robert Morris | -37.5W45–0 | 53.5 | W45–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Central Michigan at LSU | +19.5L21–49 | 61.0 | L21–49 | O | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Central Michigan vs Florida International | -12.0W31–27 | 55.0 | W31–27 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Central Michigan at Miami (OH) | -2.5L17–28 | 56.5 | L17–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Central Michigan at Ohio | -5.0W30–27 | 58.0 | W30–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/16 | Central Michigan vs Toledo | +5.0W26–23 | 53.0 | W26–23 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | Central Michigan vs Northern Illinois | -6.0L38–39 | 56.0 | L38–39 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 11/3 | Central Michigan at Western Michigan | +9.0W42–30 | 64.5 | W42–30 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/10 | Central Michigan vs Kent State | -2.5W54–30 | 76.5 | W54–30 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/17 | Central Michigan at Ball State | -2.5W37–17 | 57.0 | W37–17 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | Central Michigan vs Eastern Michigan | -8.5W31–10 | 64.0 | W31–10 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Central Michigan vs Washington State | +5.5W24–21 | 56.0 | W24–21 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Central Michigan vs Boise State | +7.5 | 55.5 | — | — | — |
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
→ Central Michigan
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Central Michigan
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Central Michigan
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?
Kent State Edge
Kent State +0.08
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Kent State Edge
Kent State +0.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Central Michigan
3 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Central Michigan
58.8 — 26.0 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Central Michigan won by 24
✗ Model missed it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Kent State, 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
Kent State
Sean Lewis #1
13–19 (41%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Andrew Sowder
Yr 1
#1
DC
Tom Kaufman
Yr 1
#1
Central Michigan
Jim McElwain #1
12–11 (52%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Kevin Barbay
Yr 1
#1
DC
Robb Akey
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 ✓