Sat, Sep 23 2023
·
Week 4
·
🏟 Johnny Red"" Floyd Stadium""
Murfreesboro, TN
·
Turf
·
31,000 cap
Colorado State✈ 1,064 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Colorado State,
while Game Control favors Middle Tennessee.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Colorado State wins
Lean
Game Control
58.6%
Middle Tennessee wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Middle Tennessee -3.5
O/U 50.0
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Colorado State
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Colorado State 2023 Schedule
Colorado State's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Colorado State vs Washington State | +9.5L24–50 | 54.0 | L24–50 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/16 | Colorado State at Colorado | +23.0L35–43 | 63.0 | L35–43 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Colorado State at Middle Tennessee | +3.5W31–23 | 50.0 | W31–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Colorado State vs Utah Tech | -19 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/7 | Colorado State at Utah State | -3.0L24–44 | 62.0 | L24–44 | O | N |
| Sat 10/14 | Colorado State vs Boise State | +7.5W31–30 | 60.0 | W31–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/21 | Colorado State at UNLV | +6.5L23–25 | 60.0 | L23–25 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | Colorado State vs Air Force | +14.5L13–30 | 47.0 | L13–30 | U | N |
| Fri 11/3 | Colorado State at Wyoming | +6.0L15–24 | 41.0 | L15–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Colorado State vs San Diego State | -3.5W22–19 | 46.5 | W22–19 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Colorado State vs Nevada | -12.5W30–20 | 45.5 | W30–20 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Colorado State at Hawai'i | -6.0L24–27 | 54.0 | L24–27 | U | N |
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 |
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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Colorado State
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?
Colorado State Edge
Colorado State +0.50
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +5.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 3 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
Colorado State
Jay Norvell #1
3–11 (21%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Matt Mumme
Yr 2
#1
DC
Freddie Banks
Yr 2
#1
Middle Tennessee
Rick Stockstill #1
110–105 (51%)
· Yr 18 at school
OC
Mitch Stewart
Yr 2
#1
DC
Scott Shafer
Yr 3
#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 ✓