Sat, Oct 22 2022
·
Week 8
·
🏟 Gerald J. Ford Stadium
University Park, TX
·
Turf
·
32,000 cap
Cincinnati✈ 810 mi-1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors SMU,
while Game Control favors Cincinnati.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
SMU wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Cincinnati -3.5
O/U 59.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Cincinnati
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Cincinnati 2022 Schedule
Cincinnati's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Cincinnati at Arkansas | +6.5L24–31 | 54.5 | L24–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Cincinnati vs Kennesaw State | -29 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/17 | Cincinnati vs Miami (OH) | -24.0W38–17 | 51.0 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Cincinnati vs Indiana | -16.5W45–24 | 57.0 | W45–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Cincinnati at Tulsa | -10.0W31–21 | 59.0 | W31–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Cincinnati vs South Florida | -27.0W28–24 | 58.5 | W28–24 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Cincinnati at SMU | -3.5W29–27 | 59.5 | W29–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Cincinnati at UCF | +1.5L21–25 | 55.5 | L21–25 | U | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Cincinnati vs Navy | -18.5W20–10 | 43.5 | W20–10 | U | N |
| Fri 11/11 | Cincinnati vs East Carolina | -4.5W27–25 | 51.5 | W27–25 | O | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Cincinnati at Temple | -17.0W23–3 | 48.5 | W23–3 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/25 | Cincinnati vs Tulane | +1.0L24–27 | 44.0 | L24–27 | O | N |
| Sat 12/17 | Cincinnati vs Louisville | +2.5L7–24 | 38.5 | L7–24 | U | N |
SMU 2022 Schedule
SMU's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | SMU at North Texas | -9.5W48–10 | 67.5 | W48–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | SMU vs Lamar | -48.5W45–16 | 66.0 | W45–16 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | SMU at Maryland | +3.0L27–34 | 74.0 | L27–34 | U | N |
| Sat 9/24 | SMU vs TCU | +2.5L34–42 | 72.0 | L34–42 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/5 | SMU at UCF | +3.0L19–41 | 65.0 | L19–41 | U | N |
| Fri 10/14 | SMU vs Navy | -12.5W40–34 | 59.0 | W40–34 | O | N |
| Sat 10/22 | SMU vs Cincinnati | +3.5L27–29 | 59.5 | L27–29 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | SMU at Tulsa | -1.0W45–34 | 63.5 | W45–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | SMU vs Houston | -3.5W77–63 | 66.0 | W77–63 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | SMU at South Florida | -17.5W41–23 | 72.5 | W41–23 | U | Y |
| Thu 11/17 | SMU at Tulane | +3.5L24–59 | 65.0 | L24–59 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | SMU vs Memphis | -4.5W34–31 | 69.0 | W34–31 | U | N |
| Sat 12/17 | SMU vs BYU | -4.5L23–24 | 65.0 | L23–24 | 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
→ Cincinnati
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Cincinnati
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Cincinnati
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?
SMU Edge
SMU +0.60
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 5 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +15.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Cincinnati
1 — 3 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Cincinnati
6.6 — 88.4 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Cincinnati won by 2
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
Cincinnati
Luke Fickell #1
48–15 (76%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Gino Guidugli
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Tressel
Yr 2
#1
SMU
Rhett Lashlee #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Casey Woods
Yr 1
#1
DC
Scott Symons
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 ✓