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%
—
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Rutgers -11.5
O/U 46.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Ohio
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Ohio 2025 Schedule
Ohio's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/28 | Ohio at Rutgers | +11.5L31–34 | 46.5 | L31–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | Ohio vs West Virginia | +3.5W17–10 | 58.5 | W17–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Ohio at Ohio State | +28.0L9–37 | 49.0 | L9–37 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Ohio vs Gardner-Webb | -30.5W52–35 | 55.0 | W52–35 | O | N |
| Sat 9/27 | Ohio vs Bowling Green | -7.5W35–20 | 49.5 | W35–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/4 | Ohio at Ball State | -14.0L14–20 | 52.5 | L14–20 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/18 | Ohio vs Northern Illinois | -10.5W48–21 | 41.5 | W48–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/25 | Ohio at Eastern Michigan | -11.5W28–21 | 60.5 | W28–21 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 11/4 | Ohio vs Miami (OH) | -2.5W24–20 | 50.5 | W24–20 | U | Y |
| Tue 11/11 | Ohio at Western Michigan | +1.5L13–17 | 46.5 | L13–17 | U | N |
| Tue 11/18 | Ohio vs Massachusetts | -34.5W42–14 | 53.5 | W42–14 | O | N |
| Fri 11/28 | Ohio at Buffalo | -7.0W31–26 | 44.5 | W31–26 | O | N |
| Tue 12/23 | Ohio vs UNLV | +6.5W17–10 | 64.5 | W17–10 | U | Y |
Rutgers 2025 Schedule
Rutgers's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/28 | Rutgers vs Ohio | -11.5W34–31 | 46.5 | W34–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Rutgers vs Miami (OH) | -15.5W45–17 | 45.5 | W45–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Rutgers vs Norfolk State | -44.5W60–10 | 56.5 | W60–10 | O | Y |
| Fri 9/19 | Rutgers vs Iowa | +2.5L28–38 | 46.5 | L28–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/27 | Rutgers at Minnesota | +3.5L28–31 | 51.5 | L28–31 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 10/10 | Rutgers at Washington | +9.5L19–38 | 62.5 | L19–38 | U | N |
| Sat 10/18 | Rutgers vs Oregon | +17.5L10–56 | 62.5 | L10–56 | O | N |
| Sat 10/25 | Rutgers at Purdue | +2.5W27–24 | 60.5 | W27–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/1 | Rutgers at Illinois | +13.5L13–35 | 63.5 | L13–35 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Rutgers vs Maryland | -1.5W35–20 | 56.5 | W35–20 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/22 | Rutgers at Ohio State | +29.0L9–42 | 54.0 | L9–42 | U | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Rutgers vs Penn State | +14.5L36–40 | 55.5 | L36–40 | O | Y |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2025 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Ohio
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Ohio
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Ohio
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 · 2025 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?
Ohio Edge
Ohio +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Ohio Edge
Ohio +0.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Rutgers, 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
Ohio
Brian Smith #1
1–0 (100%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Scott Isphording
Yr 2
#1
DC
John Hauser
Yr 2
#1
Rutgers
Greg Schiano #1
26–33 (44%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Kirk Ciarrocca
Yr 3
#1
DC
Robb Smith
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: 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 ✓