Matchup Prediction
Michigan
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Michigan entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Michigan wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
Michigan wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Michigan -2.0
O/U 46.0
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Michigan
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Alabama 2023 Schedule
Alabama's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Alabama vs Middle Tennessee | -39.5W56–7 | 52.0 | W56–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Alabama vs Texas | -7.0L24–34 | 53.0 | L24–34 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Alabama at South Florida | -34.0W17–3 | 61.0 | W17–3 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Alabama vs Ole Miss | -7.0W24–10 | 56.0 | W24–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Alabama at Mississippi State | -16.5W40–17 | 45.0 | W40–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Alabama at Texas A&M | -2.5W26–20 | 45.0 | W26–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Alabama vs Arkansas | -19.0W24–21 | 45.0 | W24–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Alabama vs Tennessee | -8.5W34–20 | 47.5 | W34–20 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/4 | Alabama vs LSU | -3.0W42–28 | 61.5 | W42–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Alabama at Kentucky | -10.0W49–21 | 45.5 | W49–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Alabama vs Chattanooga | -44.5W66–10 | 54.5 | W66–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Alabama at Auburn | -14.0W27–24 | 48.0 | W27–24 | O | N |
| Sat 12/2 | Alabama vs Georgia | +5.0W27–24 | 56.0 | W27–24 | U | Y |
| Mon 1/1 | Alabama vs Michigan | +2.0L20–27 | 46.0 | L20–27 | O | N |
Michigan 2023 Schedule
Michigan's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Michigan vs East Carolina | -36.0W30–3 | 53.5 | W30–3 | U | N |
| Sat 9/9 | Michigan vs UNLV | -38.0W35–7 | 57.5 | W35–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Michigan vs Bowling Green | -40.5W31–6 | 53.5 | W31–6 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Michigan vs Rutgers | -24.0W31–7 | 44.5 | W31–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Michigan at Nebraska | -17.0W45–7 | 39.5 | W45–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Michigan at Minnesota | -18.5W52–10 | 46.0 | W52–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Michigan vs Indiana | -33.5W52–7 | 45.5 | W52–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/21 | Michigan at Michigan State | -25.5W49–0 | 47.0 | W49–0 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/4 | Michigan vs Purdue | -32.5W41–13 | 52.5 | W41–13 | O | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Michigan at Penn State | -4.0W24–15 | 44.5 | W24–15 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Michigan at Maryland | -17.5W31–24 | 50.5 | W31–24 | O | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Michigan vs Ohio State | -3.0W30–24 | 47.0 | W30–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/2 | Michigan vs Iowa | -23.5W26–0 | 35.0 | W26–0 | U | Y |
| Mon 1/1 | Michigan vs Alabama | -2.0W27–20 | 46.0 | W27–20 | O | Y |
| Mon 1/8 | Michigan vs Washington | -5.5W34–13 | 55.5 | W34–13 | 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
→ Michigan
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Michigan
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Michigan
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?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +0.48
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 13 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +24.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 13 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Michigan with a large edge. Historically, dominant teams like this are fully priced into the spread — the agreed-upon team covers just 50.2% of the time. The metrics predict game control better than they beat the number.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Alabama
Nick Saban #1
191–28 (87%)
· Yr 17 at school
OC
Tommy Rees
Yr 1
#1
DC
Kevin Steele
Yr 1
#1
Michigan
Jim Harbaugh #1
77–25 (76%)
· Yr 9 at school
OC
Sherrone Moore
Yr 2
#1
DC
Jesse Minter
Yr 2
#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 ✓