Sun, Oct 1 2023
·
Week 5
·
🏟 Davis Wade Stadium
Starkville, MS
·
Turf
·
61,337 cap
Matchup Prediction
Alabama
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Alabama entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Alabama wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
Alabama wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Alabama -16.5
O/U 45.0
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Alabama
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
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 |
Mississippi State 2023 Schedule
Mississippi State's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Mississippi State vs SE Louisiana | -31.5W48–7 | 59.5 | W48–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Mississippi State vs Arizona | -9.0W31–24 | 60.0 | W31–24 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Mississippi State vs LSU | +9.5L14–41 | 54.0 | L14–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Mississippi State at South Carolina | +6.0L30–37 | 46.5 | L30–37 | O | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Mississippi State vs Alabama | +16.5L17–40 | 45.0 | L17–40 | O | N |
| Sat 10/7 | Mississippi State vs Western Michigan | -21.5W41–28 | 54.5 | W41–28 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/21 | Mississippi State at Arkansas | +6.5W7–3 | 46.5 | W7–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | Mississippi State at Auburn | +6.5L13–27 | 40.0 | L13–27 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Mississippi State vs Kentucky | +5.5L3–24 | 44.5 | L3–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Mississippi State at Texas A&M | +16.5L10–51 | 40.5 | L10–51 | O | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Mississippi State vs Southern Miss | -18.5W41–20 | 47.5 | W41–20 | O | Y |
| Thu 11/23 | Mississippi State vs Ole Miss | +11.0L7–17 | 56.0 | L7–17 | U | Y |
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?
Alabama Edge
Alabama +0.92
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?
Alabama Edge
Alabama +2.9
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
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
Alabama
Nick Saban #1
191–28 (87%)
· Yr 17 at school
OC
Tommy Rees
Yr 1
#1
DC
Kevin Steele
Yr 1
#1
Mississippi State
Zach Arnett #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Kevin Barbay
Yr 1
#1
DC
Matt Brock
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 ✓