Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Arizona,
while Game Control favors UCLA.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Arizona wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
UCLA wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
UCLA -2.5
O/U 50.0
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Arizona
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
UCLA 2023 Schedule
UCLA's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | UCLA vs Coastal Carolina | -15.5W27–13 | 66.5 | W27–13 | U | N |
| Sat 9/9 | UCLA at San Diego State | -13.0W35–10 | 49.0 | W35–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | UCLA vs North Carolina Central | -35.0W59–7 | 60.5 | W59–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | UCLA at Utah | +3.0L7–14 | 50.5 | L7–14 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/7 | UCLA vs Washington State | -3.0W25–17 | 60.0 | W25–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | UCLA at Oregon State | +3.5L24–36 | 53.5 | L24–36 | O | N |
| Sat 10/21 | UCLA at Stanford | -17.0W42–7 | 52.0 | W42–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | UCLA vs Colorado | -14.0W28–16 | 60.0 | W28–16 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | UCLA at Arizona | -2.5L10–27 | 50.0 | L10–27 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | UCLA vs Arizona State | -14.0L7–17 | 45.5 | L7–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | UCLA at USC | +6.0W38–20 | 65.5 | W38–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | UCLA vs California | -9.5L7–33 | 50.5 | L7–33 | U | N |
| Sat 12/16 | UCLA vs Boise State | -6.5W35–22 | 46.0 | W35–22 | O | Y |
Arizona 2023 Schedule
Arizona's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Arizona vs Northern Arizona | -28.5W38–3 | 61.0 | W38–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Arizona at Mississippi State | +9.0L24–31 | 60.0 | L24–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Arizona vs UTEP | -18.0W31–10 | 57.0 | W31–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Arizona at Stanford | -13.0W21–20 | 60.0 | W21–20 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Arizona vs Washington | +20.0L24–31 | 66.0 | L24–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Arizona at USC | +21.0L41–43 | 69.5 | L41–43 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Arizona at Washington State | +7.5W44–6 | 57.5 | W44–6 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Arizona vs Oregon State | +3.0W27–24 | 57.5 | W27–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/4 | Arizona vs UCLA | +2.5W27–10 | 50.0 | W27–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Arizona at Colorado | -6.0W34–31 | 55.5 | W34–31 | O | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Arizona vs Utah | -2.5W42–18 | 45.5 | W42–18 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Arizona at Arizona State | -12.5W59–23 | 48.5 | W59–23 | O | Y |
| Thu 12/28 | Arizona vs Oklahoma | -2.5W38–24 | 59.5 | W38–24 | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Arizona
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?
Arizona Edge
Arizona +0.29
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?
UCLA Edge
UCLA +9.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% 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
UCLA
Chip Kelly #1
30–29 (51%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Chip Kelly
Yr 2
#1
DC
D'Anton Lynn
Yr 1
#1
Arizona
Jedd Fisch #1
8–19 (30%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Brennan Carroll
Yr 3
#1
DC
Johnny Nansen
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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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 ✓