Sat, Sep 30 2023
·
Week 5
·
🏟 LaVell Edwards Stadium
Provo, UT
·
Turf
·
63,725 cap
Cincinnati✈ 1,439 mi-2 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors BYU,
while Game Control favors Cincinnati.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
BYU wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
BYU -1
O/U 47.5
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Cincinnati
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ 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 |
BYU 2023 Schedule
BYU's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | BYU vs Sam Houston | -19.0W14–0 | 46.5 | W14–0 | U | N |
| Sat 9/9 | BYU vs Southern Utah | -30.5W41–16 | 46.5 | W41–16 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | BYU at Arkansas | +9.0W38–31 | 48.0 | W38–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | BYU at Kansas | +9.0L27–38 | 55.5 | L27–38 | O | N |
| Fri 9/29 | BYU vs Cincinnati | -1.0W35–27 | 47.5 | W35–27 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | BYU at TCU | +5.0L11–44 | 52.5 | L11–44 | O | N |
| Sat 10/21 | BYU vs Texas Tech | +3.0W27–14 | 49.0 | W27–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | BYU at Texas | +20.5L6–35 | 48.5 | L6–35 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | BYU at West Virginia | +13.0L7–37 | 48.5 | L7–37 | U | N |
| Sat 11/11 | BYU vs Iowa State | +7.5L13–45 | 40.5 | L13–45 | O | N |
| Sat 11/18 | BYU vs Oklahoma | +24.5L24–31 | 58.5 | L24–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | BYU at Oklahoma State | +15.5L34–40 | 55.5 | L34–40 | 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
→ Cincinnati
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?
BYU Edge
BYU +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +7.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 4 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
Cincinnati
Scott Satterfield #1
2–1 (67%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Brad Glenn
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bryan Brown
Yr 1
#1
BYU
Kalani Sitake #1
59–34 (63%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Aaron Roderick
Yr 3
#1
DC
Jay Hill
Yr 1
#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 ✓