Sat, Sep 2 2023
·
Week 1
·
🏟 Bryant Denny Stadium
Tuscaloosa, AL
·
Turf
·
101,821 cap
Middle Tennessee✈ 194 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
—
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Alabama -39.5
O/U 52.0
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Alabama
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Middle Tennessee 2023 Schedule
Middle Tennessee's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Middle Tennessee at Alabama | +39.5L7–56 | 52.0 | L7–56 | O | N |
| Sat 9/9 | Middle Tennessee at Missouri | +21.0L19–23 | 47.5 | L19–23 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Middle Tennessee vs Murray State | -34.5W35–14 | 51.0 | W35–14 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Middle Tennessee vs Colorado State | -3.5L23–31 | 50.0 | L23–31 | O | N |
| Thu 9/28 | Middle Tennessee at Western Kentucky | +6.5L10–31 | 61.0 | L10–31 | U | N |
| Wed 10/4 | Middle Tennessee vs Jacksonville State | -2.5L30–45 | 52.0 | L30–45 | O | N |
| Tue 10/10 | Middle Tennessee vs Louisiana Tech | -3.0W31–23 | 53.5 | W31–23 | O | Y |
| Tue 10/17 | Middle Tennessee at Liberty | +16.0L35–42 | 56.5 | L35–42 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/4 | Middle Tennessee at New Mexico State | +3.0L7–13 | 55.5 | L7–13 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Middle Tennessee vs Florida International | -10.5W40–6 | 50.5 | W40–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Middle Tennessee vs UTEP | -8.5W34–30 | 48.5 | W34–30 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Middle Tennessee at Sam Houston | -3.5L20–23 | 49.5 | L20–23 | U | N |
Alabama 2023 Schedule
Alabama's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Alabama vs Middle Tennessee | -39.5W56–7 | 52.0 | W56–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Alabama vs Texas | -7.0L24–34 | 53.0 | L24–34 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Alabama at South Florida | -34.0W17–3 | 61.0 | W17–3 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Alabama vs Ole Miss | -7.0W24–10 | 56.0 | W24–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Alabama at Mississippi State | -16.5W40–17 | 45.0 | W40–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Alabama at Texas A&M | -2.5W26–20 | 45.0 | W26–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Alabama vs Arkansas | -19.0W24–21 | 45.0 | W24–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Alabama vs Tennessee | -8.5W34–20 | 47.5 | W34–20 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/4 | Alabama vs LSU | -3.0W42–28 | 61.5 | W42–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Alabama at Kentucky | -10.0W49–21 | 45.5 | W49–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Alabama vs Chattanooga | -44.5W66–10 | 54.5 | W66–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Alabama at Auburn | -14.0W27–24 | 48.0 | W27–24 | O | N |
| Sat 12/2 | Alabama vs Georgia | +5.0W27–24 | 56.0 | W27–24 | U | Y |
| Mon 1/1 | Alabama vs Michigan | +2.0L20–27 | 46.0 | L20–27 | O | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2023 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Alabama
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Alabama
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Alabama
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 · 2023 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 +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +0.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Alabama
4 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Alabama
91.1 — 4.7 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Alabama won by 49
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Alabama, 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
Middle Tennessee
Rick Stockstill #1
110–105 (51%)
· Yr 18 at school
OC
Mitch Stewart
Yr 2
#1
DC
Scott Shafer
Yr 3
#1
Alabama
Nick Saban #1
191–28 (87%)
· Yr 17 at school
OC
Tommy Rees
Yr 1
#1
DC
Kevin Steele
Yr 1
#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 ✓