Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Rice,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
71.6%
Rice wins
Solid
Game Control
75.9%
UAB wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
UAB -10.5
O/U 51.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UAB
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
UAB 2022 Schedule
UAB's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 9/1 | UAB vs Alabama A&M | -40.5W59–0 | 60.5 | W59–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | UAB at Liberty | -6.0L14–21 | 50.0 | L14–21 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | UAB vs Georgia Southern | -11.5W35–21 | 59.0 | W35–21 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/1 | UAB at Rice | -10.5L24–28 | 51.0 | L24–28 | O | N |
| Sat 10/8 | UAB vs Middle Tennessee | -10.0W41–14 | 53.0 | W41–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/15 | UAB vs Charlotte | -21.5W34–20 | 65.0 | W34–20 | U | N |
| Fri 10/21 | UAB at Western Kentucky | +1.5L17–20 | 60.5 | L17–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | UAB at Florida Atlantic | -5.0L17–24 | 45.0 | L17–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/5 | UAB vs UTSA | +2.5L38–44 | 53.5 | L38–44 | O | N |
| Sat 11/12 | UAB vs North Texas | -6.5W41–21 | 58.0 | W41–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | UAB at LSU | +15.5L10–41 | 50.5 | L10–41 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | UAB at Louisiana Tech | -18.0W37–27 | 55.5 | W37–27 | O | N |
| Fri 12/16 | UAB vs Miami (OH) | -11.0W24–20 | 44.5 | W24–20 | U | N |
Rice 2022 Schedule
Rice's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Rice at USC | +33.0L14–66 | 61.5 | L14–66 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Rice vs McNeese | -7.5W52–10 | 52.5 | W52–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Rice vs Louisiana | +11.5W33–21 | 52.0 | W33–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Rice at Houston | +17.5L27–34 | 52.5 | L27–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Rice vs UAB | +10.5W28–24 | 51.0 | W28–24 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/15 | Rice at Florida Atlantic | +5.0L14–17 | 54.5 | L14–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | Rice at Louisiana Tech | -3.0W42–41 | 57.0 | W42–41 | O | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Rice vs Charlotte | -15.0L23–56 | 61.0 | L23–56 | O | N |
| Thu 11/3 | Rice vs UTEP | -3.5W37–30 | 47.0 | W37–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Rice at Western Kentucky | +13.5L10–45 | 61.0 | L10–45 | U | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Rice vs UTSA | +14.0L7–41 | 56.0 | L7–41 | U | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Rice at North Texas | +14.5L17–21 | 57.0 | L17–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 12/17 | Rice vs Southern Miss | +7.0L24–38 | 46.5 | L24–38 | O | N |
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
→ UAB
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UAB
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ UAB
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?
Rice Edge
Rice +1.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 71.6% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UAB Edge
UAB +37.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 4 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
UAB
Bill Clark #1
49–26 (65%)
· Yr 9 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 2
#1
DC
David Reeves
Yr 2
#1
Rice
Mike Bloomgren #1
11–31 (26%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Marques Tuiasosopo
Yr 2
#1
DC
Brian Smith
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 ✓