Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Tulsa,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Tulsa wins
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
UAB wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
UAB -2.5
O/U 57.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UAB
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Tulsa 2024 Schedule
Tulsa's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/29 | Tulsa vs Northwestern State | -37.5W62–28 | 55.5 | W62–28 | O | N |
| Sat 9/7 | Tulsa at Arkansas State | +9.5L24–28 | 65.5 | L24–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/14 | Tulsa vs Oklahoma State | +17.5L10–45 | 62.5 | L10–45 | U | N |
| Sat 9/21 | Tulsa at Louisiana Tech | +3.0W23–20 | 56.5 | W23–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/28 | Tulsa at North Texas | +7.0L20–52 | 65.5 | L20–52 | O | N |
| Sat 10/5 | Tulsa vs Army | +13.5L7–49 | 50.5 | L7–49 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/19 | Tulsa at Temple | +3.5L10–20 | 51.5 | L10–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Tulsa vs UTSA | +9.5W46–45 | 52.5 | W46–45 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | Tulsa at UAB | +2.5L21–59 | 57.5 | L21–59 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 11/14 | Tulsa vs East Carolina | +16.0L31–38 | 63.5 | L31–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/23 | Tulsa at South Florida | +17.5L30–63 | 60.0 | L30–63 | O | N |
| Sat 11/30 | Tulsa vs Florida Atlantic | +2.5L16–63 | 57.5 | L16–63 | O | N |
UAB 2024 Schedule
UAB's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/29 | UAB vs Alcorn State | -29.5W41–3 | 55.5 | W41–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | UAB at UL Monroe | -10.5L6–32 | 55.5 | L6–32 | U | N |
| Sat 9/14 | UAB at Arkansas | +23.5L27–37 | 60.5 | L27–37 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/28 | UAB vs Navy | +4.5L18–41 | 56.5 | L18–41 | O | N |
| Sat 10/5 | UAB vs Tulane | +19.5L20–71 | 52.0 | L20–71 | O | N |
| Sat 10/12 | UAB at Army | +27.0L10–44 | 55.5 | L10–44 | U | N |
| Sat 10/19 | UAB at South Florida | +14.0L25–35 | 55.5 | L25–35 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/2 | UAB vs Tulsa | -2.5W59–21 | 57.5 | W59–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/9 | UAB vs UConn | +7.5L23–31 | 54.0 | L23–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/16 | UAB at Memphis | +16.0L18–53 | 62.0 | L18–53 | O | N |
| Sat 11/23 | UAB vs Rice | +7.0W40–14 | 52.0 | W40–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/30 | UAB at Charlotte | +1.5L27–29 | 59.5 | L27–29 | U | 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
→ UAB
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?
Tulsa Edge
Tulsa +0.38
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UAB Edge
UAB +3.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UAB
4 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
UAB
96.1 — 2.1 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
UAB won by 38
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
Tulsa
Kevin Wilson #1
4–8 (33%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Steve Spurrier Jr.
Yr 2
#1
DC
Chris Polizzi
Yr 2
#1
UAB
Trent Dilfer #1
4–8 (33%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Alex Mortensen
Yr 2
#1
DC
Sione Ta'ufo'ou
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 ✓