Central Michigan at Pittsburgh Week 2 College Football Matchup Central Michigan at Pittsburgh Matchup - Week 2
Sat, Sep 6 2025 · Week 2 · 🏟 Acrisure Stadium Pittsburgh, PA · Turf · 68,400 cap
Central Michigan✈ 326 miSame TZ
17 45
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Central Michigan
14
PITT -21.5
Pittsburgh
36
P&R Line Pittsburgh -22
P&R Total O/U 50.5
Confidence 86 High
Vegas Pittsburgh -21.5 · O/U 48.5
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%
Pittsburgh wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Pittsburgh -21.5
O/U 48.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Pittsburgh · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 Pittsburgh 2nd straight Home Game 🚌 Central Michigan 2nd straight Road Game
Central Michigan 2025 Schedule
Central Michigan's 2025 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Fri 8/29Central Michigan at San José State+11.5W16–1450.5W16–14UY
Sat 9/6Central Michigan at Pittsburgh+21.5L17–4548.5L17–45ON
Sat 9/13Central Michigan at Michigan+27.5L3–6342.5L3–63ON
Sat 9/20Central Michigan vs Wagner-29.0W49–1047.0W49–10OY
Sat 9/27Central Michigan vs Eastern Michigan-3.0W24–1355.5W24–13UY
Sat 10/4Central Michigan at Akron-7.0L22–2847.5L22–28ON
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/18Central Michigan at Bowling Green+3.0W27–643.5W27–6UY
Sat 10/25Central Michigan vs Massachusetts-16.5W38–1346.5W38–13OY
Sat 11/1Central Michigan at Western Michigan+6.0L21–2443.5L21–24OY
— Bye Week —
Wed 11/12Central Michigan vs Buffalo-2.5W38–1944.5W38–19OY
Wed 11/19Central Michigan at Kent State-7.5W28–1650.5W28–16UY
Sat 11/29Central Michigan vs Toledo+11.5L3–2146.5L3–21UN
Fri 12/26Central Michigan vs Northwestern+13.5L7–3443.5L7–34UN
Pittsburgh 2025 Schedule
Pittsburgh's 2025 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 8/30Pittsburgh vs Duquesne-39.5W61–958.5W61–9OY
Sat 9/6Pittsburgh vs Central Michigan-21.5W45–1748.5W45–17OY
Sat 9/13Pittsburgh at West Virginia-6.5L24–3154.5L24–31ON
— Bye Week —
Sat 9/27Pittsburgh vs Louisville+3.0L27–3453.5L27–34ON
Sat 10/4Pittsburgh vs Boston College-6.5W48–754.5W48–7OY
Sat 10/11Pittsburgh at Florida State+10.5W34–3156.5W34–31OY
Sat 10/18Pittsburgh at Syracuse-9.5W30–1354.5W30–13UY
Sat 10/25Pittsburgh vs NC State-5.5W53–3452.5W53–34OY
Sat 11/1Pittsburgh at Stanford-13.5W35–2051.5W35–20OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/15Pittsburgh vs Notre Dame+12.5L15–3755.5L15–37UN
Sat 11/22Pittsburgh at Georgia Tech+2.5W42–2861.5W42–28OY
Sat 11/29Pittsburgh vs Miami+6.5L7–3849.5L7–38UN
Sat 12/27Pittsburgh vs East Carolina-13.5L17–2351.5L17–23UN
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2025 season
Pittsburgh PPA Edge
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
→ Pittsburgh
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Central Michigan #71
+0.247
Pittsburgh #57
+0.289
Pittsburgh Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Central Michigan #22
+0.604
Pittsburgh #40
+0.529
Central Michigan Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Central Michigan #42
0.169
Pittsburgh #13
0.189
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Pittsburgh Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Central Michigan #80
+7.406
Pittsburgh #74
+6.784
Central Michigan Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Central Michigan #89
+0.762
Pittsburgh #94
+0.802
Pittsburgh Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Central Michigan #68
71.0
Pittsburgh #6
66.7
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Pittsburgh Edge
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
Pittsburgh Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Central Michigan
-4.9
Pittsburgh
9.1
Offense Rating
Central Michigan
15.1
Pittsburgh
19.3
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Central Michigan
20.0
Pittsburgh
10.2
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Central Michigan Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Central Michigan #134
1.00
Pittsburgh #5
0.00
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Central Michigan #113
0.00
Pittsburgh #66
0.00
Central Michigan +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? Pittsburgh Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Central Michigan #1
39.4
Pittsburgh #1
94.9
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Central Michigan #53
32.2
Pittsburgh #22
3.4
Pittsburgh +55.4
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Pittsburgh
2 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Pittsburgh
93.7 — 4.7 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Pittsburgh won by 28
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

Both metrics agree on Pittsburgh 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
Central Michigan
Matt Drinkall #1
0–0 (0%) · Yr 1 at school
OC Jim Chapin Yr 1 #1
DC Sean Cronin Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Pittsburgh
Pat Narduzzi #1
72–55 (57%) · Yr 11 at school
OC Kade Bell Yr 2 #1
DC Randy Bates Yr 3 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #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