Sat, Sep 3 2022
·
Week 1
·
🏟 Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium Frank Broyles Field
Fayetteville, AR
·
Turf
·
72,000 cap
Cincinnati✈ 569 mi-1 hr TZ
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
Arkansas -6.5
O/U 54.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Cincinnati 2022 Schedule
Cincinnati's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Cincinnati at Arkansas | +6.5L24–31 | 54.5 | L24–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Cincinnati vs Kennesaw State | -29 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/17 | Cincinnati vs Miami (OH) | -24.0W38–17 | 51.0 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Cincinnati vs Indiana | -16.5W45–24 | 57.0 | W45–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Cincinnati at Tulsa | -10.0W31–21 | 59.0 | W31–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Cincinnati vs South Florida | -27.0W28–24 | 58.5 | W28–24 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Cincinnati at SMU | -3.5W29–27 | 59.5 | W29–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Cincinnati at UCF | +1.5L21–25 | 55.5 | L21–25 | U | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Cincinnati vs Navy | -18.5W20–10 | 43.5 | W20–10 | U | N |
| Fri 11/11 | Cincinnati vs East Carolina | -4.5W27–25 | 51.5 | W27–25 | O | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Cincinnati at Temple | -17.0W23–3 | 48.5 | W23–3 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/25 | Cincinnati vs Tulane | +1.0L24–27 | 44.0 | L24–27 | O | N |
| Sat 12/17 | Cincinnati vs Louisville | +2.5L7–24 | 38.5 | L7–24 | U | N |
Arkansas 2022 Schedule
Arkansas's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Arkansas vs Cincinnati | -6.5W31–24 | 54.5 | W31–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Arkansas vs South Carolina | -9.0W44–30 | 56.0 | W44–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Arkansas vs Missouri State | -26.0W38–27 | 60.0 | W38–27 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Arkansas vs Texas A&M | +1.5L21–23 | 51.0 | L21–23 | U | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Arkansas vs Alabama | +17.0L26–49 | 61.0 | L26–49 | O | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Arkansas at Mississippi State | +8.0L17–40 | 55.5 | L17–40 | O | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Arkansas at BYU | +1.0W52–35 | 66.5 | W52–35 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/29 | Arkansas at Auburn | -4.0W41–27 | 60.0 | W41–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Arkansas vs Liberty | -14.5L19–21 | 61.5 | L19–21 | U | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Arkansas vs LSU | +5.0L10–13 | 59.0 | L10–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Arkansas vs Ole Miss | +0.0W42–27 | 67.5 | W42–27 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/25 | Arkansas at Missouri | -3.0L27–29 | 55.5 | L27–29 | O | N |
| Wed 12/28 | Arkansas vs Kansas | -1.5W55–53 | 70.5 | W55–53 | O | Y |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2022 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
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 · 2022 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?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +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?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +0.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Arkansas, 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
Cincinnati
Luke Fickell #1
48–15 (76%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Gino Guidugli
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Tressel
Yr 2
#1
Arkansas
Sam Pittman #1
12–11 (52%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Kendal Briles
Yr 2
#1
DC
Barry Odom
Yr 2
#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 ✓