Matchup Prediction
Houston
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Houston entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Houston wins
Lean
Game Control
58.6%
Houston wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Houston -20
O/U 56.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Houston
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Temple 2022 Schedule
Temple's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 9/2 | Temple at Duke | +9.5L0–30 | 51.5 | L0–30 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Temple vs Lafayette | -13.5W30–14 | 39.5 | W30–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Temple vs Rutgers | +18.0L14–16 | 42.5 | L14–16 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Temple vs Massachusetts | -10.0W28–0 | 44.0 | W28–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Temple at Memphis | +18.5L3–24 | 50.0 | L3–24 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/13 | Temple at UCF | +23.5L13–70 | 46.5 | L13–70 | O | N |
| Fri 10/21 | Temple vs Tulsa | +13.5L16–27 | 53.5 | L16–27 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | Temple at Navy | +14.5L20–27 | 41.5 | L20–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Temple vs South Florida | +3.5W54–28 | 49.0 | W54–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Temple at Houston | +20.0L36–43 | 56.0 | L36–43 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Temple vs Cincinnati | +17.0L3–23 | 48.5 | L3–23 | U | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Temple vs East Carolina | +9.5L46–49 | 52.0 | L46–49 | O | Y |
Houston 2022 Schedule
Houston's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Houston at UTSA | -3.5W37–35 | 61.5 | W37–35 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Houston at Texas Tech | +3.5L30–33 | 62.5 | L30–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Houston vs Kansas | -8.5L30–48 | 58.0 | L30–48 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Houston vs Rice | -17.5W34–27 | 52.5 | W34–27 | O | N |
| Fri 9/30 | Houston vs Tulane | -5.0L24–27 | 52.0 | L24–27 | U | N |
| Fri 10/7 | Houston at Memphis | +1.5W33–32 | 57.5 | W33–32 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Houston at Navy | -3.0W38–20 | 51.0 | W38–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | Houston vs South Florida | -17.0W42–27 | 59.0 | W42–27 | O | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Houston at SMU | +3.5L63–77 | 66.0 | L63–77 | O | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Houston vs Temple | -20.0W43–36 | 56.0 | W43–36 | O | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Houston at East Carolina | +6.0W42–3 | 66.5 | W42–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Houston vs Tulsa | -13.0L30–37 | 66.5 | L30–37 | O | N |
| Fri 12/23 | Houston vs Louisiana | -5.5W23–16 | 56.5 | W23–16 | 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
→ Houston
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?
Houston Edge
Houston +0.36
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Houston Edge
Houston +11.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Temple
1 — 2 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Houston
77.6 — 12.9 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Houston won by 7
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Houston. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Temple
Stan Drayton #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Danny Langsdorf
Yr 1
#1
DC
D. J. Eliot
Yr 1
#1
Houston
Dana Holgorsen #1
19–15 (56%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Shannon Dawson
Yr 2
#1
DC
Doug Belk
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 ✓