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
76%
Rutgers wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Iowa -2.5
O/U 46.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Iowa
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Iowa 2025 Schedule
Iowa's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Iowa vs UAlbany | -39.5W34–7 | 48.5 | W34–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Iowa at Iowa State | +3.0L13–16 | 43.0 | L13–16 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Iowa vs Massachusetts | -35.5W47–7 | 44.5 | W47–7 | O | Y |
| Fri 9/19 | Iowa at Rutgers | -2.5W38–28 | 46.5 | W38–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Iowa vs Indiana | +9.5L15–20 | 47.5 | L15–20 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/11 | Iowa at Wisconsin | -5.5W37–0 | 37.5 | W37–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/18 | Iowa vs Penn State | -3.5W25–24 | 41.5 | W25–24 | O | N |
| Sat 10/25 | Iowa vs Minnesota | -7.5W41–3 | 39.5 | W41–3 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/8 | Iowa vs Oregon | +4.5L16–18 | 41.5 | L16–18 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/15 | Iowa at USC | +6.5L21–26 | 48.5 | L21–26 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | Iowa vs Michigan State | -17.5W20–17 | 43.0 | W20–17 | U | N |
| Fri 11/28 | Iowa at Nebraska | -5.5W40–16 | 38.5 | W40–16 | O | Y |
| Wed 12/31 | Iowa vs Vanderbilt | +3.0W34–27 | 47.5 | W34–27 | O | 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
→ Iowa
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Iowa
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Iowa
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?
Iowa +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 2 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Rutgers Edge
Rutgers +21.6
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
GC Battle
Rutgers
30.4 — 28.0 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Iowa won by 10
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Rutgers 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
Iowa
Kirk Ferentz #1
204–123 (62%)
· Yr 27 at school
OC
Tim Lester
Yr 2
#1
DC
Phil Parker
Yr 3
#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 ✓