Sat, Nov 19 2022
·
Week 12
·
🏟 Lincoln Financial Field
Philadelphia, PA
·
Turf
·
68,532 cap
Cincinnati✈ 500 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Cincinnati
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Cincinnati entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Game Control
75.9%
Cincinnati wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
Cincinnati -17
O/U 48.5
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 |
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 |
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?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +0.31
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +44.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Cincinnati 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
Cincinnati
Luke Fickell #1
48–15 (76%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Gino Guidugli
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Tressel
Yr 2
#1
Temple
Stan Drayton #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Danny Langsdorf
Yr 1
#1
DC
D. J. Eliot
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 ✓