Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Kentucky,
while Game Control favors Auburn.
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
58.3%
Auburn wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Kentucky -2.0
O/U 43.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Auburn
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Auburn 2024 Schedule
Auburn's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Auburn vs Alabama A&M | -48.5W73–3 | 58.5 | W73–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | Auburn vs California | -11.5L14–21 | 52.5 | L14–21 | U | N |
| Sat 9/14 | Auburn vs New Mexico | -25.5W45–19 | 58.5 | W45–19 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | Auburn vs Arkansas | -2.5L14–24 | 53.5 | L14–24 | U | N |
| Sat 9/28 | Auburn vs Oklahoma | -2.0L21–27 | 43.0 | L21–27 | O | N |
| Sat 10/5 | Auburn at Georgia | +21.0L13–31 | 50.0 | L13–31 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/19 | Auburn at Missouri | +3.5L17–21 | 49.5 | L17–21 | U | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Auburn at Kentucky | +2.0W24–10 | 43.5 | W24–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | Auburn vs Vanderbilt | -7.5L7–17 | 48.0 | L7–17 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/16 | Auburn vs UL Monroe | -24.5W48–14 | 46.0 | W48–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/23 | Auburn vs Texas A&M | +2.5W43–41 | 47.0 | W43–41 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/30 | Auburn at Alabama | +10.5L14–28 | 50.5 | L14–28 | U | N |
Kentucky 2024 Schedule
Kentucky's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Kentucky vs Southern Miss | -25.5W31–0 | 50.5 | W31–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | Kentucky vs South Carolina | -9.5L6–31 | 41.5 | L6–31 | U | N |
| Sat 9/14 | Kentucky vs Georgia | +24.0L12–13 | 45.0 | L12–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | Kentucky vs Ohio | -19.0W41–6 | 42.0 | W41–6 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/28 | Kentucky at Ole Miss | +15.0W20–17 | 51.5 | W20–17 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/12 | Kentucky vs Vanderbilt | -12.5L13–20 | 44.5 | L13–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/19 | Kentucky at Florida | -2.5L20–48 | 42.5 | L20–48 | O | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Kentucky vs Auburn | -2.0L10–24 | 43.5 | L10–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/2 | Kentucky at Tennessee | +17.5L18–28 | 45.5 | L18–28 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/16 | Kentucky vs Murray State | -41.5W48–6 | 54.5 | W48–6 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/23 | Kentucky at Texas | +18.5L14–31 | 47.0 | L14–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/30 | Kentucky vs Louisville | +3.5L14–41 | 48.5 | L14–41 | 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
Both Agree
→ Auburn
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?
Kentucky Edge
Kentucky +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Auburn Edge
Auburn +7.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Auburn
30.9 — 46.0 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Auburn won by 14
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
Auburn
Hugh Freeze #1
6–7 (46%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Derrick Nix
Yr 1
#1
DC
D. J. Durkin
Yr 1
#1
Kentucky
Mark Stoops #1
73–65 (53%)
· Yr 12 at school
OC
Bush Hamdan
Yr 1
#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 ✓