UTEP at Sam Houston Week 9 College Football Matchup UTEP at Sam Houston Matchup - Week 9
Thu, Oct 26 2023 · Week 9 · 🏟 Bowers Stadium Huntsville, TX · Turf · 14,000 cap
UTEP✈ 651 mi+1 hr TZ
Away
37 34
Final
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
UTEP
20
Sam Houston
24
P&R Line Sam Houston -4.5
P&R Total O/U 44
Confidence 86 High
Vegas Sam Houston State -4 · O/U 38.5
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Sam Houston, while Game Control favors UTEP. Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Sam Houston wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
UTEP wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Sam Houston State -4
O/U 38.5
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UTEP · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 Sam Houston 2nd straight Home Game
UTEP 2023 Schedule
UTEP's 2023 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 8/26UTEP at Jacksonville State-1.5L14–1754.5L14–17UN
Sat 9/2UTEP vs Incarnate Word-7.5W28–1457.5W28–14UY
Sat 9/9UTEP at Northwestern+1.0L7–3840.0L7–38ON
Sat 9/16UTEP at Arizona+18.0L10–3157.0L10–31UN
Sat 9/23UTEP vs UNLV-1.0L28–4549.5L28–45ON
Fri 9/29UTEP vs Louisiana Tech+2.0L10–2449.5L10–24UN
— Bye Week —
Wed 10/11UTEP at Florida International-1.5W27–1444.0W27–14UY
Wed 10/18UTEP vs New Mexico State+3.0L7–2848.5L7–28UN
Wed 10/25UTEP at Sam Houston+4.0W37–3438.5W37–34OY
Sat 11/4UTEP vs Western Kentucky+9.5L13–2154.5L13–21UY
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/18UTEP at Middle Tennessee+8.5L30–3448.5L30–34OY
Sat 11/25UTEP vs Liberty+18.0L28–4254.5L28–42OY
Sam Houston 2023 Schedule
Sam Houston's 2023 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/2Sam Houston at BYU+19.0L0–1446.5L0–14UY
Sat 9/9Sam Houston vs Air Force+13.5L3–1336.5L3–13UY
— Bye Week —
Sat 9/23Sam Houston at Houston+11.5L7–3837.0L7–38ON
Thu 9/28Sam Houston vs Jacksonville State+6.5L28–3536.5L28–35ON
Thu 10/5Sam Houston at Liberty+21.0L16–2146.5L16–21UY
Wed 10/11Sam Houston at New Mexico State+4.5L13–2743.0L13–27UN
Wed 10/18Sam Houston vs Florida International-6.0L27–3342.0L27–33ON
Wed 10/25Sam Houston vs UTEP-4.0L34–3738.5L34–37ON
Sat 11/4Sam Houston vs Kennesaw State-16.5W24–2141.5W24–21ON
Sat 11/11Sam Houston at Louisiana Tech+8.5W42–2749.5W42–27OY
Sat 11/18Sam Houston at Western Kentucky+12.5L23–2852.0L23–28UY
Sat 11/25Sam Houston vs Middle Tennessee+3.5W23–2049.5W23–20UY
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2023 season
UTEP PPA Edge
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
→ UTEP
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
UTEP #80
+0.351
Sam Houston #115
+0.343
UTEP Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
UTEP #68
+0.523
Sam Houston #81
+0.500
UTEP Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
UTEP #88
0.153
Sam Houston #117
0.138
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
UTEP Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
UTEP #93
+7.362
Sam Houston #97
+8.081
Sam Houston Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
UTEP #103
+0.808
Sam Houston #118
+0.803
UTEP Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
UTEP #127
73.9
Sam Houston #109
72.0
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Sam Houston Edge
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
UTEP Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
UTEP
-16.2
Sam Houston
-19.2
Offense Rating
UTEP
4.4
Sam Houston
4.6
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
UTEP
20.6
Sam Houston
23.8
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Sam Houston Edge
Avg sequences created per game
UTEP #117
0.29
Sam Houston #94
0.43
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
UTEP #66
1.29
Sam Houston #27
0.71
Sam Houston +0.14
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? UTEP Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
UTEP #1
24.6
Sam Houston #1
23.0
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
UTEP #127
57.9
Sam Houston #95
52.9
UTEP +1.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UTEP
1 — 2 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Sam Houston
51.5 — 19.2 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
UTEP won by 3
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
UTEP
Dana Dimel #1
18–43 (30%) · Yr 6 at school
OC Scotty Ohara Yr 1 #1
DC Bradley Dale Peveto Yr 3 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Sam Houston
K. C. Keeler #1
85–29 (75%) · Yr 10 at school
OC Brad Cornelsen Yr 1 #1
DC Clayton Carlin Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #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