Matchup Prediction
Toledo
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Toledo entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Toledo wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Toledo wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Wyoming -4.5
O/U 43.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Toledo
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Toledo 2023 Schedule
Toledo's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Toledo at Illinois | +7.0L28–30 | 45.5 | L28–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Toledo vs Texas Southern | -40.5W71–3 | 61.0 | W71–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Toledo vs San José State | -9.0W21–17 | 56.5 | W21–17 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Toledo vs Western Michigan | -21.5W49–31 | 52.5 | W49–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Toledo vs Northern Illinois | -13.0W35–33 | 48.0 | W35–33 | O | N |
| Sat 10/7 | Toledo at Massachusetts | -19.0W41–24 | 55.5 | W41–24 | O | N |
| Sat 10/14 | Toledo at Ball State | -17.5W13–6 | 48.5 | W13–6 | U | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Toledo at Miami (OH) | -2.0W21–17 | 46.5 | W21–17 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/31 | Toledo vs Buffalo | -14.0W31–13 | 47.0 | W31–13 | U | Y |
| Wed 11/8 | Toledo vs Eastern Michigan | -19.5W49–23 | 45.5 | W49–23 | O | Y |
| Tue 11/14 | Toledo at Bowling Green | -9.5W32–31 | 48.5 | W32–31 | O | N |
| Fri 11/24 | Toledo at Central Michigan | -12.5W32–17 | 54.5 | W32–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 12/2 | Toledo vs Miami (OH) | -8.5L14–23 | 46.0 | L14–23 | U | N |
| Sat 12/30 | Toledo vs Wyoming | +4.5L15–16 | 43.5 | L15–16 | U | Y |
Wyoming 2023 Schedule
Wyoming's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Wyoming vs Texas Tech | +13.0W35–33 | 50.5 | W35–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Wyoming vs Portland State | -28.0W31–17 | 51.0 | W31–17 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Wyoming at Texas | +31.0L10–31 | 48.5 | L10–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Wyoming vs App State | -3.0W22–19 | 45.0 | W22–19 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Wyoming vs New Mexico | -14.5W35–26 | 40.5 | W35–26 | O | N |
| Sat 10/7 | Wyoming vs Fresno State | +5.5W24–19 | 43.0 | W24–19 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/14 | Wyoming at Air Force | +12.5L27–34 | 42.0 | L27–34 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Wyoming at Boise State | +4.5L7–32 | 48.5 | L7–32 | U | N |
| Fri 11/3 | Wyoming vs Colorado State | -6.0W24–15 | 41.0 | W24–15 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/10 | Wyoming at UNLV | +2.5L14–34 | 48.5 | L14–34 | U | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Wyoming vs Hawai'i | -13.5W42–9 | 45.5 | W42–9 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/25 | Wyoming at Nevada | -11.0W42–6 | 42.0 | W42–6 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/30 | Wyoming vs Toledo | -4.5W16–15 | 43.5 | W16–15 | 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
→ Toledo
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Toledo
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Toledo
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?
Toledo Edge
Toledo +0.24
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 11 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Toledo Edge
Toledo +5.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 12 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Wyoming
2 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Toledo
22.2 — 49.6 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Wyoming won by 1
✗ Model missed it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Toledo, but the GC edge is small. When metrics agree but GC is near-neutral, the agreed-upon team has covered only 46.7% of the time historically (n=224) — potentially a fade signal.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Toledo
Jason Candle #1
56–33 (63%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Mike Hallett
Yr 3
#1
DC
Vince Kehres
Yr 3
#1
Wyoming
Craig Bohl #1
54–57 (49%)
· Yr 10 at school
OC
Tim Polasek
Yr 3
#1
DC
Jay Sawvel
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 ✓