Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors UAB,
while Game Control favors Rice.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
UAB wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
Rice wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Rice -7.0
O/U 52.0
Bovada
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → UAB
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Rice 2024 Schedule
Rice's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Rice vs Sam Houston | -9.5L14–34 | 49.0 | L14–34 | U | N |
| Sat 9/7 | Rice vs Texas Southern | -30.0W69–7 | 52.5 | W69–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/14 | Rice at Houston | +3.5L7–33 | 43.5 | L7–33 | U | N |
| Sat 9/21 | Rice at Army | +7.0L14–37 | 44.0 | L14–37 | O | N |
| Sat 9/28 | Rice vs Charlotte | -4.0L20–21 | 48.0 | L20–21 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/12 | Rice vs UTSA | +3.5W29–27 | 51.0 | W29–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/19 | Rice at Tulane | +21.5L10–24 | 53.5 | L10–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/26 | Rice at UConn | +6.5L10–17 | 47.0 | L10–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/2 | Rice vs Navy | +12.5W24–10 | 49.0 | W24–10 | U | Y |
| Fri 11/8 | Rice at Memphis | +7.5L20–27 | 50.5 | L20–27 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/23 | Rice at UAB | -7.0L14–40 | 52.0 | L14–40 | O | N |
| Sat 11/30 | Rice vs South Florida | +5.5W35–28 | 53.5 | W35–28 | O | Y |
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?
UAB Edge
UAB +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Rice Edge
Rice +1.9
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 10 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
UAB
2 — 0 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
UAB
62.3 — 11.3 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
UAB won by 26
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
Rice
Mike Bloomgren #1
22–46 (32%)
· Yr 7 at school
OC
Marques Tuiasosopo
Yr 3
#1
DC
Brian Smith
Yr 3
#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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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 ✓