Sat, Oct 15 2022
·
Week 7
·
🏟 Summa Field at InfoCision Stadium
Akron, OH
·
Turf
·
30,000 cap
Central Michigan✈ 240 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Central Michigan wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Central Michigan -12
O/U 60.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
3 factors agree (PPA + PPO + Havoc) → Central Michigan
· 82.4% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Central Michigan 2022 Schedule
Central Michigan's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 9/1 | Central Michigan at Oklahoma State | +20.5L44–58 | 58.0 | L44–58 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Central Michigan vs South Alabama | -6.0L24–38 | 57.5 | L24–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Central Michigan vs Bucknell | -41.0W41–0 | 59.0 | W41–0 | U | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Central Michigan at Penn State | +28.0L14–33 | 61.5 | L14–33 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Central Michigan at Toledo | +6.5L17–38 | 56.0 | L17–38 | U | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Central Michigan vs Ball State | -7.5L16–17 | 63.0 | L16–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Central Michigan at Akron | -12.0W28–21 | 60.5 | W28–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/22 | Central Michigan vs Bowling Green | -5.5L18–34 | 51.0 | L18–34 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 11/2 | Central Michigan at Northern Illinois | +4.5W35–22 | 54.0 | W35–22 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/9 | Central Michigan vs Buffalo | -3.0W31–27 | 54.0 | W31–27 | O | Y |
| Wed 11/16 | Central Michigan vs Western Michigan | -10.0L10–12 | 49.0 | L10–12 | U | N |
| Fri 11/25 | Central Michigan at Eastern Michigan | +1.0L19–38 | 53.5 | L19–38 | O | N |
Akron 2022 Schedule
Akron's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 9/1 | Akron vs St. Francis (PA) | -12 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/10 | Akron at Michigan State | +34.5L0–52 | 56.0 | L0–52 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Akron at Tennessee | +47.5L6–63 | 67.0 | L6–63 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Akron at Liberty | +26.5L12–21 | 52.5 | L12–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Akron vs Bowling Green | +9.0L28–31 | 49.5 | L28–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Akron at Ohio | +10.0L34–55 | 58.5 | L34–55 | O | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Akron vs Central Michigan | +12.0L21–28 | 60.5 | L21–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | Akron at Kent State | +16.0L27–33 | 65.0 | L27–33 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | Akron vs Miami (OH) | +9.0L9–27 | 51.5 | L9–27 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 11/8 | Akron vs Eastern Michigan | +6.5L28–34 | 57.0 | L28–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Akron at Buffalo | +14.0 | 43.5 | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/26 | Akron at Northern Illinois | +9.5W44–12 | 51.5 | W44–12 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/2 | Akron at Buffalo | +12.0L22–23 | 55.0 | L22–23 | 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
3 Agree
→ Central Michigan
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Central Michigan +0.00
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?
Central Michigan Edge
Central Michigan +17.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
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
Central Michigan
Jim McElwain #1
20–13 (61%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Paul Petrino
Yr 1
#1
DC
Robb Akey
Yr 2
#1
Akron
Joe Moorhead #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Joe Moorhead
Yr 1
#1
DC
Tim Tibesar
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 ✓