Sat, Nov 8 2025
·
Week 11
·
🏟 Johnny Red"" Floyd Stadium""
Murfreesboro, TN
·
Turf
·
31,000 cap
Florida International✈ 782 mi-1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Florida International
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Florida International entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Florida International wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Florida International wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Middle Tennessee -1.5
O/U 50.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
3 factors agree (PPA + PPO + Havoc) → Florida International
· 82.4% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Florida International 2025 Schedule
Florida International's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 8/29 | Florida International vs Bethune-Cookman | -26.5W42–9 | 54.5 | W42–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | Florida International at Penn State | +42.0L0–34 | 53.5 | L0–34 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Florida International vs Florida Atlantic | -2.0W38–28 | 56.5 | W38–28 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Florida International vs Delaware | -4.0L16–38 | 54.5 | L16–38 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/4 | Florida International at UConn | +7.0L10–51 | 52.5 | L10–51 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/14 | Florida International at Western Kentucky | +9.5W25–6 | 55.5 | W25–6 | U | Y |
| Tue 10/21 | Florida International vs Kennesaw State | +3.0L26–45 | 48.5 | L26–45 | O | N |
| Wed 10/29 | Florida International at Missouri State | +3.0L21–28 | 50.0 | L21–28 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Florida International at Middle Tennessee | +1.5W56–30 | 50.5 | W56–30 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/15 | Florida International vs Liberty | +2.5W34–27 | 51.5 | W34–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | Florida International vs Jacksonville State | -2.5W27–21 | 55.5 | W27–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/29 | Florida International vs Sam Houston | -10.5W56–16 | 50.5 | W56–16 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/26 | Florida International vs UTSA | +7.0L20–57 | 62.5 | L20–57 | O | N |
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 |
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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Florida International
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Florida International Edge
Florida International +0.29
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Florida International Edge
Florida International +15.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Florida International
1 — 6 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Florida International
23.2 — 60.0 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Florida International won by 26
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Florida International with a solid GC edge. Teams with this profile have covered 53.0% of the time historically (n=330) — a mild lean.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Florida International
Willie Simmons #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Nick Coleman
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jovan Dewitt
Yr 3
#1
Middle Tennessee
Derek Mason #1
3–9 (25%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Bodie Reeder
Yr 2
#1
DC
Brian Stewart
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 ✓

