Fri, Sep 30 2022
·
Week 5
·
🏟 Johnny Red"" Floyd Stadium""
Murfreesboro, TN
·
Turf
·
31,000 cap
UTSA✈ 832 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Middle Tennessee
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Middle Tennessee entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Middle Tennessee wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
Middle Tennessee wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
UT San Antonio -4.5
O/U 64.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UTSA
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
UTSA 2022 Schedule
UTSA's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | UTSA vs Houston | +3.5L35–37 | 61.5 | L35–37 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | UTSA at Army | -2.0W41–38 | 54.0 | W41–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | UTSA at Texas | +13.0L20–41 | 57.5 | L20–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | UTSA vs Texas Southern | -42.0W52–24 | 65.5 | W52–24 | O | N |
| Fri 9/30 | UTSA at Middle Tennessee | -4.5W45–30 | 64.0 | W45–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | UTSA vs Western Kentucky | -6.5W31–28 | 72.5 | W31–28 | U | N |
| Fri 10/14 | UTSA at Florida International | -33.0W30–10 | 64.0 | W30–10 | U | N |
| Sat 10/22 | UTSA vs North Texas | -10.0W31–27 | 73.0 | W31–27 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/5 | UTSA at UAB | -2.5W44–38 | 53.5 | W44–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | UTSA vs Louisiana Tech | -17.0W51–7 | 68.5 | W51–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | UTSA at Rice | -14.0W41–7 | 56.0 | W41–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | UTSA vs UTEP | -16.5W34–31 | 56.5 | W34–31 | O | N |
| Fri 12/2 | UTSA vs North Texas | -8.5W48–27 | 70.0 | W48–27 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/16 | UTSA vs Troy | +2.0L12–18 | 55.5 | L12–18 | U | N |
Middle Tennessee 2022 Schedule
Middle Tennessee's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Middle Tennessee at James Madison | +4.5L7–44 | 60.5 | L7–44 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Middle Tennessee at Colorado State | +13.5W34–19 | 58.0 | W34–19 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Middle Tennessee vs Tennessee State | -19.5W49–6 | 52.5 | W49–6 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Middle Tennessee at Miami | +25.5W45–31 | 53.5 | W45–31 | O | Y |
| Fri 9/30 | Middle Tennessee vs UTSA | +4.5L30–45 | 64.0 | L30–45 | O | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Middle Tennessee at UAB | +10.0L14–41 | 53.0 | L14–41 | O | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Middle Tennessee vs Western Kentucky | +7.5L17–35 | 67.5 | L17–35 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/29 | Middle Tennessee at UTEP | +2.5W24–13 | 52.0 | W24–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Middle Tennessee at Louisiana Tech | -2.5L24–40 | 64.0 | L24–40 | U | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Middle Tennessee vs Charlotte | -10.0W24–14 | 67.0 | W24–14 | U | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Middle Tennessee vs Florida Atlantic | +5.5W49–21 | 51.0 | W49–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Middle Tennessee at Florida International | -19.5W33–28 | 54.5 | W33–28 | O | N |
| Sat 12/24 | Middle Tennessee vs San Diego State | +7.0W25–23 | 47.0 | W25–23 | 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
→ UTSA
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UTSA
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ UTSA
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?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +0.83
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +21.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Middle Tennessee 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
UTSA
Jeff Traylor #1
19–7 (73%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Will Stein
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jess Loepp
Yr 1
#1
Middle Tennessee
Rick Stockstill #1
101–98 (51%)
· Yr 17 at school
OC
Mitch Stewart
Yr 1
#1
DC
Scott Shafer
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 ✓