Sat, Nov 4 2023
·
Week 10
·
🏟 Vanderbilt Stadium
Nashville, TN
·
Turf
·
40,350 cap
Auburn✈ 256 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Vanderbilt,
while Game Control favors Auburn.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Vanderbilt wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Auburn wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Auburn -12.5
O/U 50.0
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Auburn
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Auburn 2023 Schedule
Auburn's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Auburn vs Massachusetts | -35.0W59–14 | 52.0 | W59–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Auburn at California | -5.0W14–10 | 55.5 | W14–10 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Auburn vs Samford | -37.5W45–13 | 62.0 | W45–13 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Auburn at Texas A&M | +9.5L10–27 | 51.0 | L10–27 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Auburn vs Georgia | +14.0L20–27 | 44.5 | L20–27 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | Auburn at LSU | +11.0L18–48 | 60.0 | L18–48 | O | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Auburn vs Ole Miss | +6.5L21–28 | 55.5 | L21–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Auburn vs Mississippi State | -6.5W27–13 | 40.0 | W27–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/4 | Auburn at Vanderbilt | -12.5W31–15 | 50.0 | W31–15 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Auburn at Arkansas | +2.5W48–10 | 46.5 | W48–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Auburn vs New Mexico State | -25.5L10–31 | 48.5 | L10–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Auburn vs Alabama | +14.0L24–27 | 48.0 | L24–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/30 | Auburn vs Maryland | -4.0L13–31 | 47.5 | L13–31 | U | N |
Vanderbilt 2023 Schedule
Vanderbilt's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/26 | Vanderbilt vs Hawai'i | -17.0W35–28 | 54.5 | W35–28 | O | N |
| Sat 9/2 | Vanderbilt vs Alabama A&M | -35.0W47–13 | 53.5 | W47–13 | O | N |
| Sat 9/9 | Vanderbilt at Wake Forest | +9.5L20–36 | 55.0 | L20–36 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Vanderbilt at UNLV | -4.5L37–40 | 56.5 | L37–40 | O | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Vanderbilt vs Kentucky | +13.5L28–45 | 50.0 | L28–45 | O | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Vanderbilt vs Missouri | +14.0L21–38 | 53.5 | L21–38 | O | N |
| Sat 10/7 | Vanderbilt at Florida | +18.0L14–38 | 51.0 | L14–38 | O | N |
| Sat 10/14 | Vanderbilt vs Georgia | +32.5L20–37 | 55.0 | L20–37 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Vanderbilt at Ole Miss | +24.0L7–33 | 62.0 | L7–33 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Vanderbilt vs Auburn | +12.5L15–31 | 50.0 | L15–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Vanderbilt at South Carolina | +13.5L6–47 | 53.5 | L6–47 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/25 | Vanderbilt at Tennessee | +27.0L24–48 | 58.0 | L24–48 | O | 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
→ Auburn
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Auburn
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Auburn
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?
Vanderbilt Edge
Vanderbilt +0.05
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Auburn Edge
Auburn +18.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 9 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
Auburn
Hugh Freeze #1
3–0 (100%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Philip Montgomery
Yr 1
#1
DC
Ron Roberts
Yr 1
#1
Vanderbilt
Clark Lea #1
9–19 (32%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Joey Lynch
Yr 2
#1
DC
Nick Howell
Yr 2
#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 ✓