Sun, Nov 12 2023
·
Week 11
·
🏟 John O'Quinn Field at TDECU Stadium
Houston, TX
·
Turf
·
40,000 cap
Cincinnati✈ 895 mi-1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Houston,
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%
Houston wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
Cincinnati wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Houston -3.5
O/U 53.5
ESPN Bet
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Cincinnati
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ 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 |
Houston 2023 Schedule
Houston's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Houston vs UTSA | +2.5W17–14 | 59.5 | W17–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Houston at Rice | -7.5L41–43 | 51.0 | L41–43 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Houston vs TCU | +7.5L13–36 | 64.0 | L13–36 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Houston vs Sam Houston | -11.5W38–7 | 37.0 | W38–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Houston at Texas Tech | +8.5L28–49 | 52.0 | L28–49 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/12 | Houston vs West Virginia | +3.0W41–39 | 49.5 | W41–39 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/21 | Houston vs Texas | +24.0L24–31 | 60.5 | L24–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | Houston at Kansas State | +17.5L0–41 | 61.0 | L0–41 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Houston at Baylor | +3.0W25–24 | 58.5 | W25–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Houston vs Cincinnati | -3.5L14–24 | 53.5 | L14–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Houston vs Oklahoma State | +6.5L30–43 | 56.5 | L30–43 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Houston at UCF | +15.5L13–27 | 61.5 | L13–27 | U | 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
→ Cincinnati
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Cincinnati
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?
Houston Edge
Houston +0.31
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Cincinnati Edge
Cincinnati +3.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% 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
Cincinnati
Scott Satterfield #1
2–1 (67%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Brad Glenn
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bryan Brown
Yr 1
#1
Houston
Dana Holgorsen #1
28–22 (56%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Dana Holgorsen
Yr 1
#1
DC
Doug Belk
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 ✓