Sat, Sep 21 2024
·
Week 4
·
🏟 Kyle Field
College Station, TX
·
Turf
·
102,733 cap
Bowling Green✈ 1,026 mi-1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
—
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
Texas A&M wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -21
O/U 50.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Bowling Green 2024 Schedule
Bowling Green's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/29 | Bowling Green vs Fordham | -15.5W41–17 | 60.5 | W41–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | Bowling Green at Penn State | +35.5L27–34 | 51.5 | L27–34 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/21 | Bowling Green at Texas A&M | +21.0L20–26 | 50.5 | L20–26 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/28 | Bowling Green vs Old Dominion | -11.0L27–30 | 51.5 | L27–30 | O | N |
| Sat 10/5 | Bowling Green at Akron | -17.0W27–20 | 48.5 | W27–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/12 | Bowling Green vs Northern Illinois | -3.0L7–17 | 46.5 | L7–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/19 | Bowling Green vs Kent State | -24.0W27–6 | 54.5 | W27–6 | U | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Bowling Green at Toledo | +1.5W41–26 | 47.5 | W41–26 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 11/5 | Bowling Green at Central Michigan | -14.5W23–13 | 47.5 | W23–13 | U | N |
| Tue 11/12 | Bowling Green vs Western Michigan | -9.5W31–13 | 57.5 | W31–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/23 | Bowling Green at Ball State | -12.5W38–13 | 54.5 | W38–13 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/29 | Bowling Green vs Miami (OH) | -3.0L12–28 | 37.5 | L12–28 | O | N |
| Thu 12/26 | Bowling Green vs Arkansas State | -10.5L31–38 | 54.5 | L31–38 | O | N |
Texas A&M 2024 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Texas A&M vs Notre Dame | -3.0L13–23 | 47.0 | L13–23 | U | N |
| Sat 9/7 | Texas A&M vs McNeese | -48.5W52–10 | 56.5 | W52–10 | O | N |
| Sat 9/14 | Texas A&M at Florida | -4.5W33–20 | 47.0 | W33–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | Texas A&M vs Bowling Green | -21.0W26–20 | 50.5 | W26–20 | U | N |
| Sat 9/28 | Texas A&M vs Arkansas | -6.5W21–17 | 50.5 | W21–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/5 | Texas A&M vs Missouri | -3.0W41–10 | 47.5 | W41–10 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/19 | Texas A&M at Mississippi State | -21.0W34–24 | 55.5 | W34–24 | O | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Texas A&M vs LSU | -2.0W38–23 | 54.5 | W38–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | Texas A&M at South Carolina | -3.0L20–44 | 43.5 | L20–44 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/16 | Texas A&M vs New Mexico State | -38.5W38–3 | 54.5 | W38–3 | U | N |
| Sat 11/23 | Texas A&M at Auburn | -2.5L41–43 | 47.0 | L41–43 | O | N |
| Sat 11/30 | Texas A&M vs Texas | +4.5L7–17 | 49.5 | L7–17 | U | N |
| Fri 12/27 | Texas A&M vs USC | -3.5L31–35 | 56.5 | L31–35 | O | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2024 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
Split
Metrics disagree
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 · 2024 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?
Bowling Green +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +1.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Texas A&M
2 — 0 sequences
GC Battle
Texas A&M
74.0 — 11.5 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Texas A&M won by 6
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Texas A&M, 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
Bowling Green
Scot Loeffler #1
20–35 (36%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Greg Nosal
Yr 2
#1
DC
Sammy Lawanson
Yr 2
#1
Texas A&M
Mike Elko #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Collin Klein
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jay Bateman
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 ✓