Sat, Sep 27 2025
·
Week 5
·
🏟 Fifth Third Bank Stadium
Kennesaw, GA
·
Turf
·
8,318 cap
Middle Tennessee✈ 162 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Middle Tennessee,
while Game Control favors Kennesaw State.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Middle Tennessee wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
Kennesaw State wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Kennesaw State -7
O/U 54.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Kennesaw State
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Middle Tennessee 2025 Schedule
Middle Tennessee's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Middle Tennessee vs Austin Peay | -14.5L14–34 | 53.5 | L14–34 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Middle Tennessee at Wisconsin | +28.5L10–42 | 45.5 | L10–42 | O | N |
| Sat 9/13 | Middle Tennessee at Nevada | +9.0W14–13 | 50.0 | W14–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Middle Tennessee vs Marshall | +2.5L28–42 | 46.5 | L28–42 | O | N |
| Sat 9/27 | Middle Tennessee at Kennesaw State | +7.0L16–24 | 54.5 | L16–24 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/8 | Middle Tennessee vs Missouri State | +2.5L20–22 | 52.5 | L20–22 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/22 | Middle Tennessee at Delaware | +9.5L28–31 | 55.5 | L28–31 | O | Y |
| Wed 10/29 | Middle Tennessee vs Jacksonville State | +4.5L21–24 | 54.0 | L21–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/8 | Middle Tennessee vs Florida International | -1.5L30–56 | 50.5 | L30–56 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | Middle Tennessee at Western Kentucky | +13.5L26–42 | 51.5 | L26–42 | O | N |
| Sat 11/22 | Middle Tennessee vs Sam Houston | -6.5W31–17 | 53.5 | W31–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/29 | Middle Tennessee at New Mexico State | +3.5W31–24 | 52.0 | W31–24 | O | Y |
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 |
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
→ Kennesaw State
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Kennesaw State
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Kennesaw State
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?
Middle Tennessee Edge
Middle Tennessee +0.33
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Kennesaw State Edge
Kennesaw State +31.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Kennesaw State
1 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Kennesaw State
92.7 — 5.7 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Kennesaw State won by 8
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
Middle Tennessee
Derek Mason #1
3–9 (25%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Bodie Reeder
Yr 2
#1
DC
Brian Stewart
Yr 2
#1
Kennesaw State
Jerry Mack #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Mitch Militello
Yr 1
#1
DC
Marc Mattioli
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 ✓