Matchup Prediction
UAB
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
UAB entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
UAB wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
UAB wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
UAB -21.5
O/U 65.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UAB
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Charlotte 2022 Schedule
Charlotte's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/27 | Charlotte at Florida Atlantic | +7.0L13–43 | 60.0 | L13–43 | U | N |
| Fri 9/2 | Charlotte vs William & Mary | -4.5L24–41 | 52.0 | L24–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Charlotte vs Maryland | +28.0L21–56 | 65.0 | L21–56 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Charlotte at Georgia State | +19.5W42–41 | 64.0 | W42–41 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Charlotte at South Carolina | +23.5L20–56 | 66.5 | L20–56 | O | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Charlotte vs UTEP | +3.5L35–41 | 56.0 | L35–41 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/15 | Charlotte at UAB | +21.5L20–34 | 65.0 | L20–34 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | Charlotte vs Florida International | -14.0L15–34 | 63.5 | L15–34 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Charlotte at Rice | +15.0W56–23 | 61.0 | W56–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Charlotte vs Western Kentucky | +14.5L7–59 | 72.5 | L7–59 | U | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Charlotte at Middle Tennessee | +10.0L14–24 | 67.0 | L14–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Charlotte vs Louisiana Tech | +2.0W26–21 | 66.5 | W26–21 | U | 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
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?
UAB Edge
UAB +0.90
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?
UAB Edge
UAB +63.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 5 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UAB
1 — 0 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
UAB
73.2 — 18.0 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
UAB won by 14
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on UAB 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
Charlotte
Will Healy #1
14–17 (45%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Mark Carney
Yr 2
#1
DC
Greg Brown
Yr 1
#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 ✓