Sun, Sep 11 2022
·
Week 2
·
🏟 Sun Bowl Stadium
El Paso, TX
·
Turf
·
51,500 cap
Matchup Prediction
UTEP
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
UTEP entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
UTEP wins
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
UTEP wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
UTEP -17
O/U 46.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
New Mexico State 2022 Schedule
New Mexico State's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/27 | New Mexico State vs Nevada | +7.0L12–23 | 48.0 | L12–23 | U | N |
| Thu 9/1 | New Mexico State at Minnesota | +36.0L0–38 | 52.5 | L0–38 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | New Mexico State at UTEP | +17.0L13–20 | 46.5 | L13–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | New Mexico State at Wisconsin | +38.0L7–66 | 45.5 | L7–66 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | New Mexico State vs Hawai'i | -4.5W45–26 | 53.0 | W45–26 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | New Mexico State vs Florida International | -15.0L7–21 | 54.0 | L7–21 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/15 | New Mexico State vs New Mexico | +7.0W21–9 | 38.5 | W21–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | New Mexico State vs San José State | +21.0 | 43.0 | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/29 | New Mexico State at Massachusetts | -1.0W23–13 | 39.0 | W23–13 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/12 | New Mexico State vs Lamar | -22.0W51–14 | 48.5 | W51–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | New Mexico State at Missouri | +29.0L14–45 | 46.5 | L14–45 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | New Mexico State at Liberty | +24.0W49–14 | 51.0 | W49–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/3 | New Mexico State vs Valparaiso | -31.5W65–3 | 55.0 | W65–3 | O | Y |
| Mon 12/26 | New Mexico State vs Bowling Green | +3.0W24–19 | 51.0 | W24–19 | U | Y |
UTEP 2022 Schedule
UTEP's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/27 | UTEP vs North Texas | +1.5L13–31 | 52.5 | L13–31 | U | N |
| Sat 9/3 | UTEP at Oklahoma | +31.0L13–45 | 58.0 | L13–45 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | UTEP vs New Mexico State | -17.0W20–13 | 46.5 | W20–13 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | UTEP at New Mexico | -2.0L10–27 | 38.0 | L10–27 | U | N |
| Fri 9/23 | UTEP vs Boise State | +16.0W27–10 | 44.5 | W27–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | UTEP at Charlotte | -3.5W41–35 | 56.0 | W41–35 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | UTEP at Louisiana Tech | +2.0L31–41 | 52.0 | L31–41 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | UTEP vs Florida Atlantic | +3.0W24–21 | 50.5 | W24–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | UTEP vs Middle Tennessee | -2.5L13–24 | 52.0 | L13–24 | U | N |
| Thu 11/3 | UTEP at Rice | +3.5L30–37 | 47.0 | L30–37 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/19 | UTEP vs Florida International | -14.0W40–6 | 50.0 | W40–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | UTEP at UTSA | +16.5L31–34 | 56.5 | L31–34 | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +0.50
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +3.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on UTEP, but the GC edge is small. When metrics agree but GC is near-neutral, the agreed-upon team has covered only 46.7% of the time historically (n=224) — potentially a fade signal.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
New Mexico State
Jerry Kill #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Tim Beck
Yr 1
#1
DC
Nate Dreiling
Yr 1
#1
UTEP
Dana Dimel #1
12–33 (27%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Dave Warner
Yr 2
#1
DC
Bradley Dale Peveto
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: 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 ✓