Wed, Oct 15 2025
·
Week 8
·
Neutral Site
·
🏟 BBVA Compass Stadium
Houston, TX
·
Turf
·
22,039 cap
UTEP✈ 676 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
UTEP
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
UTEP entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
UTEP wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
UTEP wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
UTEP -3.5
O/U 46.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → UTEP
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
UTEP 2025 Schedule
UTEP's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | UTEP at Utah State | +3.5L16–28 | 59.5 | L16–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | UTEP vs UT Martin | -7.5W42–17 | 49.5 | W42–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | UTEP at Texas | +39.5L10–27 | 52.5 | L10–27 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | UTEP vs UL Monroe | -5.5L25–31 | 47.5 | L25–31 | O | N |
| Sat 9/27 | UTEP vs Louisiana Tech | +3.5L11–30 | 48.5 | L11–30 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/8 | UTEP vs Liberty | +1.5L8–19 | 46.5 | L8–19 | U | N |
| Wed 10/15 | UTEP vs Sam Houston | -3.5W35–17 | 46.5 | W35–17 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/28 | UTEP at Kennesaw State | +12.5L20–33 | 53.5 | L20–33 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | UTEP vs Jacksonville State | +1.5L27–30 | 46.5 | L27–30 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | UTEP at Missouri State | +6.5L24–38 | 47.5 | L24–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/22 | UTEP vs New Mexico State | -4.0L31–34 | 44.5 | L31–34 | O | N |
| Sat 11/29 | UTEP at Delaware | +4.5L31–61 | 55.5 | L31–61 | O | N |
Sam Houston 2025 Schedule
Sam Houston's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/23 | Sam Houston at Western Kentucky | +9.5L24–41 | 60.5 | L24–41 | O | N |
| Fri 8/29 | Sam Houston vs UNLV | +13.5L21–38 | 58.5 | L21–38 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Sam Houston at Hawai'i | +7.0L20–37 | 47.5 | L20–37 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/20 | Sam Houston at Texas | +39.5L0–55 | 51.5 | L0–55 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/2 | Sam Houston at New Mexico State | -1.5L10–37 | 53.5 | L10–37 | U | N |
| Thu 10/9 | Sam Houston vs Jacksonville State | +7.0L27–29 | 53.5 | L27–29 | O | Y |
| Wed 10/15 | Sam Houston vs UTEP | +3.5L17–35 | 46.5 | L17–35 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 10/31 | Sam Houston at Louisiana Tech | +16.5L14–55 | 48.0 | L14–55 | O | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Sam Houston at Oregon State | +21.0W21–17 | 52.5 | W21–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/15 | Sam Houston vs Delaware | +11.5W26–23 | 56.5 | W26–23 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | Sam Houston at Middle Tennessee | +6.5L17–31 | 53.5 | L17–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Sam Houston vs Florida International | +10.5L16–56 | 50.5 | L16–56 | 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
→ UTEP
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ UTEP
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ UTEP
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?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +0.40
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +11.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 6 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on UTEP. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
UTEP
Scotty Walden #1
3–9 (25%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Mark Cala
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bobby Daly
Yr 1
#1
Sam Houston
Phil Longo #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Zack Patterson
Yr 1
#1
DC
Freddie Aughtry-Lindsay
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 ✓