Matchup Prediction
BYU
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
BYU entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
BYU wins
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
BYU wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
BYU -7.0
O/U 54.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UAB
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
UAB 2021 Schedule
UAB's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wed 9/1 | UAB vs Jacksonville State | -16.5W31–0 | 52.0 | W31–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | UAB at Georgia | +22.5L7–56 | 44.0 | L7–56 | O | N |
| Sat 9/18 | UAB at North Texas | -12.5W40–6 | 58.5 | W40–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | UAB at Tulane | +2.5W28–21 | 55.0 | W28–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/2 | UAB vs Liberty | -3.0L12–36 | 49.0 | L12–36 | U | N |
| Sat 10/9 | UAB vs Florida Atlantic | -3.5W31–14 | 48.5 | W31–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | UAB at Southern Miss | -17.0W34–0 | 43.0 | W34–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | UAB vs Rice | -23.5L24–30 | 44.5 | L24–30 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/6 | UAB vs Louisiana Tech | -14.0W52–38 | 49.5 | W52–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/13 | UAB at Marshall | +4.5W21–14 | 55.5 | W21–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | UAB at UTSA | +3.5L31–34 | 54.0 | L31–34 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/26 | UAB vs UTEP | -13.5W42–25 | 49.5 | W42–25 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/18 | UAB vs BYU | +7.0W31–28 | 54.5 | W31–28 | O | Y |
BYU 2021 Schedule
BYU's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | BYU vs Arizona | -13.5W24–16 | 54.0 | W24–16 | U | N |
| Sat 9/11 | BYU vs Utah | +7.0W26–17 | 50.0 | W26–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | BYU vs Arizona State | +3.5W27–17 | 50.5 | W27–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | BYU vs South Florida | -23.5W35–27 | 54.5 | W35–27 | O | N |
| Fri 10/1 | BYU at Utah State | -9.0W34–20 | 66.0 | W34–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | BYU vs Boise State | -6.0L17–26 | 58.0 | L17–26 | U | N |
| Sat 10/16 | BYU at Baylor | +5.5L24–38 | 52.5 | L24–38 | O | N |
| Sat 10/23 | BYU at Washington State | -3.5W21–19 | 56.5 | W21–19 | U | N |
| Sat 10/30 | BYU vs Virginia | -2.5W66–49 | 66.5 | W66–49 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | BYU vs Idaho State | -36.5W59–14 | 55.0 | W59–14 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/20 | BYU at Georgia Southern | -20.0W34–17 | 57.0 | W34–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/27 | BYU at USC | -8.5W35–31 | 65.5 | W35–31 | O | N |
| Sat 12/18 | BYU vs UAB | -7.0L28–31 | 54.5 | L28–31 | 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
→ UAB
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UAB
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ UAB
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?
BYU Edge
BYU +0.26
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 11 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
BYU Edge
BYU +4.6
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 12 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
UAB
25.9 — 40.4 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
UAB won by 3
✗ Model missed it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on BYU, 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
UAB
Bill Clark #1
42–23 (65%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 1
#1
DC
David Reeves
Yr 1
#1
BYU
Kalani Sitake #1
41–26 (61%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Aaron Roderick
Yr 1
#1
DC
Ilaisa Tuiaki
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 ✓