Matchup Prediction
Tennessee
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Tennessee entering this game.
Momentum Control
71.6%
Tennessee wins
Solid
Game Control
76%
Tennessee wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Tennessee -41.5
O/U 54.0
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Tennessee
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
UTEP 2024 Schedule
UTEP's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | UTEP at Nebraska | +27.5L7–40 | 49.0 | L7–40 | U | N |
| Sat 9/7 | UTEP vs Southern Utah | -6.5L24–27 | 54.5 | L24–27 | U | N |
| Sat 9/14 | UTEP at Liberty | +23.5L10–28 | 57.5 | L10–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | UTEP at Colorado State | +8.5L17–27 | 49.0 | L17–27 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/3 | UTEP vs Sam Houston | +10.0L21–41 | 49.5 | L21–41 | O | N |
| Thu 10/10 | UTEP at Western Kentucky | +19.0L17–44 | 55.5 | L17–44 | O | N |
| Wed 10/16 | UTEP vs Florida International | +7.0W30–21 | 47.0 | W30–21 | O | Y |
| Tue 10/22 | UTEP at Louisiana Tech | +6.5L10–14 | 49.0 | L10–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | UTEP vs Middle Tennessee | -2.0L13–20 | 48.0 | L13–20 | U | N |
| Sat 11/9 | UTEP vs Kennesaw State | -4.5W43–35 | 42.0 | W43–35 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/23 | UTEP at Tennessee | +41.5L0–56 | 54.0 | L0–56 | O | N |
| Sat 11/30 | UTEP at New Mexico State | +3.5W42–35 | 51.5 | W42–35 | O | Y |
Tennessee 2024 Schedule
Tennessee's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Tennessee vs Chattanooga | -38.5W69–3 | 56.5 | W69–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | Tennessee vs NC State | -10.0W51–10 | 60.5 | W51–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/14 | Tennessee vs Kent State | -49.5W71–0 | 61.5 | W71–0 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | Tennessee at Oklahoma | -6.0W25–15 | 57.0 | W25–15 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/5 | Tennessee at Arkansas | -14.0L14–19 | 57.5 | L14–19 | U | N |
| Sat 10/12 | Tennessee vs Florida | -13.5W23–17 | 54.5 | W23–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/19 | Tennessee vs Alabama | +3.5W24–17 | 57.5 | W24–17 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/2 | Tennessee vs Kentucky | -17.5W28–18 | 45.5 | W28–18 | O | N |
| Sat 11/9 | Tennessee vs Mississippi State | -26.5W33–14 | 61.5 | W33–14 | U | N |
| Sat 11/16 | Tennessee at Georgia | +8.5L17–31 | 47.0 | L17–31 | O | N |
| Sat 11/23 | Tennessee vs UTEP | -41.5W56–0 | 54.0 | W56–0 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/30 | Tennessee at Vanderbilt | -9.5W36–23 | 45.5 | W36–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/21 | Tennessee at Ohio State | +7.5L17–42 | 47.0 | L17–42 | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Tennessee
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Tennessee
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Tennessee
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?
Tennessee Edge
Tennessee +1.67
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 71.6% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Tennessee Edge
Tennessee +33.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tennessee
5 — 0 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Tennessee
69.5 — 11.4 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Tennessee won by 56
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Tennessee 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
UTEP
Scotty Walden #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Jake Brown
Yr 1
#1
DC
J. J. Clark
Yr 1
#1
Tennessee
Josh Heupel #1
27–12 (69%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Joey Halzle
Yr 2
#1
DC
Tim Banks
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 ✓