Sat, Sep 6 2025
·
Week 2
·
🏟 Memorial Stadium
Bloomington, IN
·
Turf
·
52,959 cap
Kennesaw State✈ 372 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Indiana
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Indiana entering this game.
Momentum Control
71.6%
Indiana wins
Solid
Game Control
76%
Indiana wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Indiana -35.5
O/U 51.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Indiana
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Kennesaw State 2025 Schedule
Kennesaw State's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 8/29 | Kennesaw State at Wake Forest | +17.5L9–10 | 51.5 | L9–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | Kennesaw State at Indiana | +35.5L9–56 | 51.5 | L9–56 | O | N |
| Sat 9/13 | Kennesaw State vs Merrimack | -17.5W27–13 | 44.5 | W27–13 | U | N |
| Sat 9/20 | Kennesaw State vs Arkansas State | +4.5W28–21 | 57.5 | W28–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Kennesaw State vs Middle Tennessee | -7.0W24–16 | 54.5 | W24–16 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/9 | Kennesaw State vs Louisiana Tech | +4.5W35–7 | 46.5 | W35–7 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/21 | Kennesaw State at Florida International | -3.0W45–26 | 48.5 | W45–26 | O | Y |
| Tue 10/28 | Kennesaw State vs UTEP | -12.5W33–20 | 53.5 | W33–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/8 | Kennesaw State at New Mexico State | -11.5W24–21 | 52.5 | W24–21 | U | N |
| Sat 11/15 | Kennesaw State at Jacksonville State | -3.5L26–35 | 56.5 | L26–35 | O | N |
| Sat 11/22 | Kennesaw State vs Missouri State | -6.5W41–34 | 54.0 | W41–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/29 | Kennesaw State at Liberty | -2.5W48–42 | 55.5 | W48–42 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/5 | Kennesaw State at Jacksonville State | -3.0W19–15 | 62.5 | W19–15 | U | Y |
| Fri 12/19 | Kennesaw State vs Western Michigan | +3.0L6–41 | 47.0 | L6–41 | U | N |
Indiana 2025 Schedule
Indiana's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Indiana vs Old Dominion | -23.5W27–14 | 54.5 | W27–14 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Indiana vs Kennesaw State | -35.5W56–9 | 51.5 | W56–9 | O | Y |
| Fri 9/12 | Indiana vs Indiana State | -47.5W73–0 | 60.0 | W73–0 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Indiana vs Illinois | -7.0W63–10 | 51.5 | W63–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Indiana at Iowa | -9.5W20–15 | 47.5 | W20–15 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/11 | Indiana at Oregon | +7.0W30–20 | 51.5 | W30–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/18 | Indiana vs Michigan State | -26.5W38–13 | 49.5 | W38–13 | O | N |
| Sat 10/25 | Indiana vs UCLA | -26.5W56–6 | 53.5 | W56–6 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/1 | Indiana at Maryland | -21.0W55–10 | 50.5 | W55–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/8 | Indiana at Penn State | -13.5W27–24 | 50.5 | W27–24 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | Indiana vs Wisconsin | -28.5W31–7 | 43.5 | W31–7 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 11/28 | Indiana at Purdue | -28.5W56–3 | 53.5 | W56–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/6 | Indiana vs Ohio State | +5.5W13–10 | 48.5 | W13–10 | U | Y |
| Thu 1/1 | Indiana vs Alabama | -7.5W38–3 | 46.5 | W38–3 | U | Y |
| Fri 1/9 | Indiana vs Oregon | -3.0W56–22 | 50.5 | W56–22 | O | Y |
| Mon 1/19 | Indiana vs Miami | -7.5W27–21 | 46.5 | W27–21 | O | N |
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
→ Indiana
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Indiana
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Indiana
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?
Indiana Edge
Indiana +1.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 71.6% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Indiana Edge
Indiana +71.4
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Indiana
5 — 1 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Indiana
90.0 — 4.2 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Indiana won by 47
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Indiana 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
Kennesaw State
Jerry Mack #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Mitch Militello
Yr 1
#1
DC
Marc Mattioli
Yr 1
#1
Indiana
Curt Cignetti #1
11–1 (92%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Mike Shanahan
Yr 2
#1
DC
Bryant Haines
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 ✓