Matchup Prediction
Michigan
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Michigan entering this game.
Momentum Control
80.6%
Michigan wins
Strong
Game Control
75.9%
Michigan wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
Michigan -26
O/U 45.0
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 |
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
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 +2.20
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 80.6% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +53.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 8 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 large edge. Historically, dominant teams like this are fully priced into the spread — the agreed-upon team covers just 50.2% of the time. The metrics predict game control better than they beat the number.
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
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: 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 ✓