Sat, Sep 3 2022
·
Week 1
·
🏟 Alumni Stadium
Chestnut Hill, MA
·
Turf
·
44,500 cap
Rutgers✈ 210 miSame 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
Boston College -8.5
O/U 47.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Rutgers 2022 Schedule
Rutgers's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Rutgers at Boston College | +8.5W22–21 | 47.0 | W22–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Rutgers vs Wagner | -48.5W66–7 | 55.5 | W66–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Rutgers at Temple | -18.0W16–14 | 42.5 | W16–14 | U | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Rutgers vs Iowa | +7.5L10–27 | 34.5 | L10–27 | O | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Rutgers at Ohio State | +39.0L10–49 | 58.0 | L10–49 | O | Y |
| Fri 10/7 | Rutgers vs Nebraska | +3.0L13–14 | 50.5 | L13–14 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Rutgers vs Indiana | -3.0W24–17 | 48.0 | W24–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | Rutgers at Minnesota | +14.0L0–31 | 40.5 | L0–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Rutgers vs Michigan | +26.0L17–52 | 45.0 | L17–52 | O | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Rutgers at Michigan State | +10.0L21–27 | 41.0 | L21–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Rutgers vs Penn State | +18.5L10–55 | 45.0 | L10–55 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Rutgers at Maryland | +14.5L0–37 | 48.5 | L0–37 | U | N |
Boston College 2022 Schedule
Boston College's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Boston College vs Rutgers | -8.5L21–22 | 47.0 | L21–22 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Boston College at Virginia Tech | +2.5L10–27 | 45.0 | L10–27 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Boston College vs Maine | -31.0W38–17 | 48.0 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Boston College at Florida State | +18.5L14–44 | 48.5 | L14–44 | O | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Boston College vs Louisville | +13.5W34–33 | 48.5 | W34–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Boston College vs Clemson | +21.0L3–31 | 49.0 | L3–31 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Boston College at Wake Forest | +20.0L15–43 | 60.0 | L15–43 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Boston College at UConn | -8.0L3–13 | 44.0 | L3–13 | U | N |
| Fri 11/4 | Boston College vs Duke | +11.5L31–38 | 47.0 | L31–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Boston College at NC State | +18.0W21–20 | 41.0 | W21–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Boston College at Notre Dame | +20.0L0–44 | 42.0 | L0–44 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Boston College vs Syracuse | +10.5L23–32 | 47.0 | L23–32 | 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?
Rutgers Edge
Rutgers +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?
Rutgers Edge
Rutgers +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 Boston College, 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
Rutgers
Greg Schiano #1
8–14 (36%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Sean Gleeson
Yr 2
#1
DC
Joe Harasymiak
Yr 1
#1
Boston College
Jeff Hafley #1
11–11 (50%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
John McNulty
Yr 1
#1
DC
Tem Lukabu
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: 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 ✓