Matchup Prediction
Troy
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Troy entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Troy wins
Lean
Game Control
58.6%
Troy wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Troy -6.5
O/U 51.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Troy
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
App State 2023 Schedule
App State's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | App State vs Gardner-Webb | -22.5W45–24 | 51.0 | W45–24 | O | N |
| Sat 9/9 | App State at North Carolina | +18.0L34–40 | 58.0 | L34–40 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | App State vs East Carolina | -7.5W43–28 | 48.5 | W43–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | App State at Wyoming | +3.0L19–22 | 45.0 | L19–22 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | App State at UL Monroe | -13.5W41–40 | 50.5 | W41–40 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/10 | App State vs Coastal Carolina | -4.5L24–27 | 59.0 | L24–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/21 | App State at Old Dominion | -6.0L21–28 | 56.0 | L21–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | App State vs Southern Miss | -16.0W48–38 | 55.5 | W48–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/4 | App State vs Marshall | -3.0W31–9 | 57.5 | W31–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | App State at Georgia State | +2.5W42–14 | 62.5 | W42–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | App State at James Madison | +10.0W26–23 | 56.5 | W26–23 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | App State vs Georgia Southern | -7.5W55–27 | 62.5 | W55–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/2 | App State at Troy | +6.5L23–49 | 51.5 | L23–49 | O | N |
| Sat 12/16 | App State vs Miami (OH) | -6.5W13–9 | 41.0 | W13–9 | U | N |
Troy 2023 Schedule
Troy's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Troy vs Stephen F. Austin | -26.0W48–30 | 48.0 | W48–30 | O | N |
| Sat 9/9 | Troy at Kansas State | +15.0L13–42 | 50.0 | L13–42 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Troy vs James Madison | -2.5L14–16 | 46.5 | L14–16 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Troy vs Western Kentucky | -3.5W27–24 | 57.0 | W27–24 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Troy at Georgia State | +1.0W28–7 | 50.5 | W28–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Troy vs Arkansas State | -15.5W37–3 | 52.0 | W37–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Troy at Army | -6.5W19–0 | 41.5 | W19–0 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Troy at Texas State | -6.5W31–13 | 53.0 | W31–13 | U | Y |
| Thu 11/2 | Troy vs South Alabama | -5.5W28–10 | 44.5 | W28–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Troy at UL Monroe | -23.5W45–14 | 47.5 | W45–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Troy vs Louisiana | -17.5W31–24 | 47.5 | W31–24 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Troy at Southern Miss | -16.5W35–17 | 48.5 | W35–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/2 | Troy vs App State | -6.5W49–23 | 51.5 | W49–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/23 | Troy vs Duke | -7.0L10–17 | 44.0 | L10–17 | U | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Troy
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Troy
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Troy
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?
Troy Edge
Troy +0.36
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 11 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Troy Edge
Troy +11.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 12 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Troy
2 — 1 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Troy
61.7 — 13.1 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Troy won by 26
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Troy. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
App State
Shawn Clark #1
28–14 (67%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Frank Ponce
Yr 2
#1
DC
Scott Sloan
Yr 1
#1
Troy
Jon Sumrall #1
13–4 (77%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Joe Craddock
Yr 2
#1
DC
Greg Gasparato
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 ✓