Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Indiana,
while Game Control favors Rutgers.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Indiana wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
Rutgers wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Rutgers -3.0
O/U 48.0
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Rutgers
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Indiana 2022 Schedule
Indiana's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 9/2 | Indiana vs Illinois | -1.0W23–20 | 47.5 | W23–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Indiana vs Idaho | -24.5W35–22 | 50.5 | W35–22 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Indiana vs Western Kentucky | -7.0W33–30 | 61.0 | W33–30 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Indiana at Cincinnati | +16.5L24–45 | 57.0 | L24–45 | O | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Indiana at Nebraska | +6.5L21–35 | 62.0 | L21–35 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Indiana vs Michigan | +23.5L10–31 | 57.5 | L10–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/15 | Indiana vs Maryland | +11.0L33–38 | 63.0 | L33–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | Indiana at Rutgers | +3.0L17–24 | 48.0 | L17–24 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/5 | Indiana vs Penn State | +13.5L14–45 | 50.0 | L14–45 | O | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Indiana at Ohio State | +40.0L14–56 | 62.0 | L14–56 | O | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Indiana at Michigan State | +12.0W39–31 | 47.0 | W39–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Indiana vs Purdue | +10.0L16–30 | 52.5 | L16–30 | U | N |
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 |
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
All 4 Agree
→ Rutgers
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Rutgers
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Rutgers
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?
Indiana Edge
Indiana +0.27
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 5 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Rutgers Edge
Rutgers +26.4
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Rutgers
1 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Indiana
32.8 — 51.9 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Rutgers won by 7
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
Indiana
Tom Allen #1
26–32 (45%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Walt Bell
Yr 1
#1
DC
Chad Wilt
Yr 1
#1
Rutgers
Greg Schiano #1
8–14 (36%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Sean Gleeson
Yr 2
#1
DC
Joe Harasymiak
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 ✓