Sat, Sep 9 2023
·
Week 2
·
🏟 Acrisure Stadium
Pittsburgh, PA
·
Turf
·
68,400 cap
Cincinnati✈ 255 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Pittsburgh -6.5
O/U 44.5
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Cincinnati 2023 Schedule
Cincinnati's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Cincinnati vs Eastern Kentucky | -21.5W66–13 | 57.5 | W66–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Cincinnati at Pittsburgh | +6.5W27–21 | 44.5 | W27–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Cincinnati vs Miami (OH) | -14.5L24–31 | 44.5 | L24–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Cincinnati vs Oklahoma | +13.0L6–20 | 58.0 | L6–20 | U | N |
| Fri 9/29 | Cincinnati at BYU | +1.0L27–35 | 47.5 | L27–35 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | Cincinnati vs Iowa State | -4.0L10–30 | 42.5 | L10–30 | U | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Cincinnati vs Baylor | -2.5L29–32 | 51.5 | L29–32 | O | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Cincinnati at Oklahoma State | +7.0L13–45 | 53.0 | L13–45 | O | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Cincinnati vs UCF | +3.5L26–28 | 59.5 | L26–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Cincinnati at Houston | +3.5W24–14 | 53.5 | W24–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Cincinnati at West Virginia | +4.5L21–42 | 52.5 | L21–42 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Cincinnati vs Kansas | +7.5L16–49 | 59.5 | L16–49 | O | N |
Pittsburgh 2023 Schedule
Pittsburgh's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Pittsburgh vs Wofford | -37.5W45–7 | 49.5 | W45–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Pittsburgh vs Cincinnati | -6.5L21–27 | 44.5 | L21–27 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Pittsburgh at West Virginia | +2.5L6–17 | 48.0 | L6–17 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Pittsburgh vs North Carolina | +7.0L24–41 | 49.5 | L24–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Pittsburgh at Virginia Tech | -3.0L21–38 | 40.0 | L21–38 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | Pittsburgh vs Louisville | +7.5W38–21 | 44.5 | W38–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/21 | Pittsburgh at Wake Forest | -3.0L17–21 | 45.0 | L17–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Pittsburgh at Notre Dame | +21.0L7–58 | 45.5 | L7–58 | O | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Pittsburgh vs Florida State | +21.5L7–24 | 50.0 | L7–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Pittsburgh vs Syracuse | -4.5L13–28 | 37.5 | L13–28 | O | N |
| Thu 11/16 | Pittsburgh vs Boston College | -1.0W24–16 | 47.0 | W24–16 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Pittsburgh at Duke | +4.5L19–30 | 40.5 | L19–30 | O | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +11.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Cincinnati
1 — 2 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Cincinnati
7.9 — 86.7 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Cincinnati won by 6
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
Cincinnati
Scott Satterfield #1
2–1 (67%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Brad Glenn
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bryan Brown
Yr 1
#1
Pittsburgh
Pat Narduzzi #1
63–43 (59%)
· Yr 9 at school
OC
Frank Cignetti Jr.
Yr 2
#1
DC
Randy Bates
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 ✓