Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Kentucky,
while Game Control favors Clemson.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Kentucky wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Clemson wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Clemson -3.5
O/U 44.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Clemson
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Clemson 2023 Schedule
Clemson's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 9/4 | Clemson at Duke | -12.5L7–28 | 54.0 | L7–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/9 | Clemson vs Charleston Southern | -50.5W66–17 | 53.0 | W66–17 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Clemson vs Florida Atlantic | -25.0W48–14 | 51.5 | W48–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Clemson vs Florida State | +2.0L24–31 | 55.5 | L24–31 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Clemson at Syracuse | -7.0W31–14 | 52.0 | W31–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Clemson vs Wake Forest | -21.0W17–12 | 53.5 | W17–12 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/21 | Clemson at Miami | -3.0L20–28 | 48.5 | L20–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Clemson at NC State | -9.5L17–24 | 44.5 | L17–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Clemson vs Notre Dame | +3.0W31–23 | 44.5 | W31–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Clemson vs Georgia Tech | -17.5W42–21 | 55.5 | W42–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Clemson vs North Carolina | -7.5W31–20 | 58.0 | W31–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Clemson at South Carolina | -7.5W16–7 | 48.0 | W16–7 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/29 | Clemson vs Kentucky | -3.5W38–35 | 44.5 | W38–35 | O | N |
Kentucky 2023 Schedule
Kentucky's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Kentucky vs Ball State | -25.0W44–14 | 49.0 | W44–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Kentucky vs Eastern Kentucky | -35.0W28–17 | 62.5 | W28–17 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Kentucky vs Akron | -25.0W35–3 | 48.5 | W35–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Kentucky at Vanderbilt | -13.5W45–28 | 50.0 | W45–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Kentucky vs Florida | -1.0W33–14 | 44.0 | W33–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Kentucky at Georgia | +14.5L13–51 | 47.0 | L13–51 | O | N |
| Sat 10/14 | Kentucky vs Missouri | -1.5L21–38 | 50.5 | L21–38 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Kentucky vs Tennessee | +4.0L27–33 | 50.5 | L27–33 | O | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Kentucky at Mississippi State | -5.5W24–3 | 44.5 | W24–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Kentucky vs Alabama | +10.0L21–49 | 45.5 | L21–49 | O | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Kentucky at South Carolina | +2.5L14–17 | 52.5 | L14–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Kentucky at Louisville | +7.5W38–31 | 47.5 | W38–31 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/29 | Kentucky vs Clemson | +3.5L35–38 | 44.5 | L35–38 | 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
→ Clemson
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?
Kentucky Edge
Kentucky +0.18
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?
Clemson Edge
Clemson +11.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 12 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
Clemson
Dabo Swinney #1
163–40 (80%)
· Yr 15 at school
OC
Garrett Riley
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mickey Conn
Yr 2
#1
Kentucky
Mark Stoops #1
69–59 (54%)
· Yr 11 at school
OC
Liam Coen
Yr 2
#1
DC
Brad White
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 ✓