Sat, Nov 4 2023
·
Week 10
·
🏟 Spartan Stadium
East Lansing, MI
·
Turf
·
75,005 cap
Nebraska✈ 642 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Michigan State,
while Game Control favors Nebraska.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Michigan State wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Nebraska wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Nebraska -3
O/U 34.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Nebraska
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Nebraska 2023 Schedule
Nebraska's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/31 | Nebraska at Minnesota | +7.5L10–13 | 43.0 | L10–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Nebraska at Colorado | +2.5L14–36 | 56.5 | L14–36 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Nebraska vs Northern Illinois | -11.5W35–11 | 42.5 | W35–11 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Nebraska vs Louisiana Tech | -20.5W28–14 | 44.5 | W28–14 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Nebraska vs Michigan | +17.0L7–45 | 39.5 | L7–45 | O | N |
| Fri 10/6 | Nebraska at Illinois | +3.5W20–7 | 43.0 | W20–7 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/21 | Nebraska vs Northwestern | -10.5W17–9 | 40.0 | W17–9 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Nebraska vs Purdue | +1.0W31–14 | 39.5 | W31–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/4 | Nebraska at Michigan State | -3.0L17–20 | 34.5 | L17–20 | O | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Nebraska vs Maryland | +1.5L10–13 | 41.5 | L10–13 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Nebraska at Wisconsin | +7.5L17–24 | 36.5 | L17–24 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/24 | Nebraska vs Iowa | -3.0L10–13 | 25.5 | L10–13 | U | N |
Michigan State 2023 Schedule
Michigan State's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 9/1 | Michigan State vs Central Michigan | -14.0W31–7 | 45.0 | W31–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Michigan State vs Richmond | -29.5W45–14 | 43.5 | W45–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Michigan State vs Washington | +14.5L7–41 | 57.0 | L7–41 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Michigan State vs Maryland | +7.0L9–31 | 52.5 | L9–31 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Michigan State at Iowa | +10.0L16–26 | 36.5 | L16–26 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | Michigan State at Rutgers | +4.0L24–27 | 38.5 | L24–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/21 | Michigan State vs Michigan | +25.5L0–49 | 47.0 | L0–49 | O | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Michigan State at Minnesota | +6.5L12–27 | 41.5 | L12–27 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Michigan State vs Nebraska | +3.0W20–17 | 34.5 | W20–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Michigan State at Ohio State | +30.5L3–38 | 48.5 | L3–38 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Michigan State at Indiana | +3.5W24–21 | 47.5 | W24–21 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/24 | Michigan State vs Penn State | +20.0L0–42 | 42.0 | L0–42 | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Nebraska
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Nebraska
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Nebraska
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?
Michigan State Edge
Michigan State +0.36
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?
Nebraska Edge
Nebraska +13.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 8 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
Nebraska
Matt Rhule #1
1–2 (33%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Marcus Satterfield
Yr 1
#1
DC
Tony White
Yr 1
#1
Michigan State
Harlon Barnett #1
0–1 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Jay Johnson
Yr 3
#1
DC
Scottie Hazelton
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 ✓