Sat, Nov 15 2025
·
Week 12
·
🏟 Plaster Sports Complex
Springfield, MO
·
Turf
·
17,500 cap
UTEP✈ 840 mi+1 hr TZ
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors UTEP,
while Game Control favors Missouri State.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
UTEP wins
Lean
Game Control
67.1%
Missouri State wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
Missouri State -6.5
O/U 47.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Missouri State
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ 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 |
Missouri State 2025 Schedule
Missouri State's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Missouri State at USC | +34.5L13–73 | 59.5 | L13–73 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Missouri State at Marshall | +7.0W21–20 | 53.5 | W21–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Missouri State vs SMU | +29.5L10–28 | 60.5 | L10–28 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Missouri State vs UT Martin | -14.0W42–10 | 55.5 | W42–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Missouri State vs Western Kentucky | +3.5L22–27 | 59.5 | L22–27 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/8 | Missouri State at Middle Tennessee | -2.5W22–20 | 52.5 | W22–20 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/22 | Missouri State at New Mexico State | -2.5W24–17 | 51.5 | W24–17 | U | Y |
| Wed 10/29 | Missouri State vs Florida International | -3.0W28–21 | 50.0 | W28–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/8 | Missouri State at Liberty | +7.5W21–17 | 51.5 | W21–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/15 | Missouri State vs UTEP | -6.5W38–24 | 47.5 | W38–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | Missouri State at Kennesaw State | +6.5L34–41 | 54.0 | L34–41 | O | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Missouri State vs Louisiana Tech | -2.5L30–42 | 45.0 | L30–42 | O | N |
| Thu 12/18 | Missouri State vs Arkansas State | +1.5L28–34 | 55.5 | L28–34 | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Missouri 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?
UTEP Edge
UTEP +0.25
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Missouri State Edge
Missouri State +15.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 67.1% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Missouri State
3 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Missouri State
82.3 — 7.2 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Missouri State won by 14
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
UTEP
Scotty Walden #1
3–9 (25%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Mark Cala
Yr 1
#1
DC
Bobby Daly
Yr 1
#1
Missouri State
Ryan Beard #1
12–11 (52%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Nick Petrino
Yr 2
#1
DC
L.D. Scott
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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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 ✓