Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Army,
while Game Control favors Troy.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Army wins
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
Troy wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Troy -8.5
O/U 45.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Troy
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Army 2022 Schedule
Army's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Army at Coastal Carolina | +1.5L28–38 | 54.0 | L28–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Army vs UTSA | +2.0L38–41 | 54.0 | L38–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Army vs Villanova | -14.0W49–10 | 56.0 | W49–10 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/1 | Army vs Georgia State | -8.5L14–31 | 54.0 | L14–31 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Army at Wake Forest | +16.0L10–45 | 65.5 | L10–45 | U | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Army vs Colgate | -31.0W42–17 | 51.0 | W42–17 | O | N |
| Sat 10/22 | Army vs UL Monroe | -6.5W48–24 | 55.5 | W48–24 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/5 | Army vs Air Force | +7.0L7–13 | 40.5 | L7–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Army at Troy | +8.5L9–10 | 45.5 | L9–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Army vs UConn | -10.5W34–17 | 45.0 | W34–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Army at Massachusetts | -20.0W44–7 | 45.5 | W44–7 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 12/10 | Army vs Navy | +2.5W20–17 | 32.0 | W20–17 | O | Y |
Troy 2022 Schedule
Troy's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Troy at Ole Miss | +21.5L10–28 | 56.5 | L10–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Troy vs Alabama A&M | -37.5W38–17 | 52.0 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Troy at App State | +14.0L28–32 | 52.0 | L28–32 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Troy vs Marshall | +3.0W16–7 | 51.5 | W16–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Troy at Western Kentucky | +5.0W34–27 | 55.0 | W34–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Troy vs Southern Miss | -7.0W27–10 | 44.0 | W27–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/15 | Troy vs Texas State | -16.5W17–14 | 47.0 | W17–14 | U | N |
| Thu 10/20 | Troy at South Alabama | +3.0W10–6 | 47.0 | W10–6 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/5 | Troy at Louisiana | -3.5W23–17 | 42.5 | W23–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Troy vs Army | -8.5W10–9 | 45.5 | W10–9 | U | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Troy vs UL Monroe | -15.0W34–16 | 48.5 | W34–16 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Troy at Arkansas State | -13.5W48–19 | 43.5 | W48–19 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/3 | Troy vs Coastal Carolina | -7.0W45–26 | 49.0 | W45–26 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/16 | Troy vs UTSA | -2.0W18–12 | 55.5 | W18–12 | U | 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
Both Agree
→ Troy
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?
Army Edge
Army +0.25
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Troy Edge
Troy +1.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
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
Army
Jeff Monken #1
58–42 (58%)
· Yr 9 at school
OC
Brent Davis
Yr 2
#1
DC
Nate Woody
Yr 2
#1
Troy
Jon Sumrall #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Joe Craddock
Yr 1
#1
DC
Shiel Wood
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 ✓