Sat, Oct 8 2022
·
Week 6
·
🏟 Protective Stadium
Birmingham, AL
·
Turf
·
47,100 cap
Middle Tennessee✈ 162 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Middle Tennessee,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Middle Tennessee wins
Lean
Game Control
67.1%
UAB wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
UAB -10
O/U 53.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UAB
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
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 |
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 |
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
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?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +0.53
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UAB Edge
UAB +15.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 67.1% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UAB
4 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
UAB
98.0 — 1.6 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
UAB won by 27
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
Middle Tennessee
Rick Stockstill #1
101–98 (51%)
· Yr 17 at school
OC
Mitch Stewart
Yr 1
#1
DC
Scott Shafer
Yr 2
#1
UAB
Bill Clark #1
49–26 (65%)
· Yr 9 at school
OC
Bryant Vincent
Yr 2
#1
DC
David Reeves
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 ✓