Matchup Prediction
Michigan
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Michigan entering this game.
Momentum Control
73.7%
Michigan wins
Solid
Game Control
64.9%
Michigan wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Michigan -10.5
O/U 42.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Michigan
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Michigan 2022 Schedule
Michigan's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Michigan vs Colorado State | -31.0W51–7 | 60.5 | W51–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Michigan vs Hawai'i | -52.5W56–10 | 66.5 | W56–10 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Michigan vs UConn | -47.5W59–0 | 59.0 | W59–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Michigan vs Maryland | -17.0W34–27 | 66.0 | W34–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Michigan at Iowa | -10.5W27–14 | 42.0 | W27–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Michigan at Indiana | -23.5W31–10 | 57.5 | W31–10 | U | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Michigan vs Penn State | -7.0W41–17 | 49.0 | W41–17 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/29 | Michigan vs Michigan State | -22.0W29–7 | 55.0 | W29–7 | U | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Michigan at Rutgers | -26.0W52–17 | 45.0 | W52–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Michigan vs Nebraska | -30.5W34–3 | 49.5 | W34–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Michigan vs Illinois | -17.0W19–17 | 41.5 | W19–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Michigan at Ohio State | +9.0W45–23 | 56.0 | W45–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/3 | Michigan vs Purdue | -16.0W43–22 | 53.0 | W43–22 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/31 | Michigan vs TCU | -8.0L45–51 | 56.0 | L45–51 | O | N |
Iowa 2022 Schedule
Iowa's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Iowa vs South Dakota State | -11.0W7–3 | 42.5 | W7–3 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Iowa vs Iowa State | -3.5L7–10 | 39.0 | L7–10 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Iowa vs Nevada | -24.0W27–0 | 39.0 | W27–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Iowa at Rutgers | -7.5W27–10 | 34.5 | W27–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Iowa vs Michigan | +10.5L14–27 | 42.0 | L14–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Iowa at Illinois | +3.5L6–9 | 36.5 | L6–9 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Iowa at Ohio State | +29.5L10–54 | 50.0 | L10–54 | O | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Iowa vs Northwestern | -11.5W33–13 | 37.0 | W33–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Iowa at Purdue | +3.5W24–3 | 39.5 | W24–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Iowa vs Wisconsin | -1.0W24–10 | 35.5 | W24–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Iowa at Minnesota | +2.0W13–10 | 31.5 | W13–10 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/25 | Iowa vs Nebraska | -10.5L17–24 | 38.0 | L17–24 | O | N |
| Sat 12/31 | Iowa vs Kentucky | -3.0W21–0 | 31.5 | W21–0 | 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
→ 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 · 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?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +1.75
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 73.7% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +16.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Michigan with a moderate edge in both. This is the strongest ATS signal in our backtest: teams in this situation have covered 55.8% of the time (n=113).
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Michigan
Jim Harbaugh #1
61–24 (72%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Sherrone Moore
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jesse Minter
Yr 1
#1
Iowa
Kirk Ferentz #1
177–110 (62%)
· Yr 24 at school
OC
Brian Ferentz
Yr 2
#1
DC
Phil Parker
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 ✓