Sat, Sep 6 2025
·
Week 2
·
🏟 Alamodome
San Antonio, TX
·
Turf
·
65,000 cap
Matchup Prediction
Texas State
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Texas State entering this game.
Momentum Control
80.6%
Texas State wins
Strong
Game Control
75.9%
Texas State wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
UTSA -4.5
O/U 64.5
ESPN Bet
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Texas State 2025 Schedule
Texas State's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Texas State vs Eastern Michigan | -14.0W52–27 | 58.5 | W52–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | Texas State at UTSA | +4.5W43–36 | 64.5 | W43–36 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Texas State at Arizona State | +18.5L15–34 | 61.5 | L15–34 | U | N |
| Sat 9/20 | Texas State vs Nicholls | -32.5W35–3 | 57.0 | W35–3 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/4 | Texas State at Arkansas State | -14.0L30–31 | 63.5 | L30–31 | U | N |
| Sat 10/11 | Texas State vs Troy | -7.5L41–48 | 53.5 | L41–48 | O | N |
| Sat 10/18 | Texas State at Marshall | -3.0L37–40 | 65.5 | L37–40 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 10/28 | Texas State vs James Madison | +7.5L20–52 | 55.5 | L20–52 | O | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Texas State at Louisiana | -3.5L39–42 | 62.5 | L39–42 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | Texas State at Southern Miss | +3.0W41–14 | 65.5 | W41–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | Texas State vs UL Monroe | -20.5W31–14 | 59.5 | W31–14 | U | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Texas State vs South Alabama | -9.5W49–26 | 62.5 | W49–26 | O | Y |
| Fri 1/2 | Texas State vs Rice | -19.5W41–10 | 55.5 | W41–10 | U | Y |
UTSA 2025 Schedule
UTSA's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | UTSA at Texas A&M | +21.5L24–42 | 56.5 | L24–42 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | UTSA vs Texas State | -4.5L36–43 | 64.5 | L36–43 | O | N |
| Sat 9/13 | UTSA vs Incarnate Word | -21.0W48–20 | 62.5 | W48–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | UTSA at Colorado State | -4.5W17–16 | 58.5 | W17–16 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/4 | UTSA at Temple | -6.5L21–27 | 58.5 | L21–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/11 | UTSA vs Rice | -8.5W61–13 | 48.5 | W61–13 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/18 | UTSA at North Texas | +4.0L17–55 | 64.5 | L17–55 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Thu 10/30 | UTSA vs Tulane | +5.5W48–26 | 54.5 | W48–26 | O | Y |
| Thu 11/6 | UTSA at South Florida | +14.0L23–55 | 66.5 | L23–55 | O | N |
| Sat 11/15 | UTSA at Charlotte | -16.5W28–7 | 57.5 | W28–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | UTSA vs East Carolina | +2.0W58–24 | 62.5 | W58–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/29 | UTSA vs Army | -8.5L24–27 | 50.5 | L24–27 | O | N |
| Fri 12/26 | UTSA vs Florida International | -7.0W57–20 | 62.5 | W57–20 | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Texas State Edge
Texas State +3.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 80.6% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas State Edge
Texas State +84.9
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Texas State 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
Texas State
G. J. Kinne #1
15–10 (60%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Landon Keopple
Yr 1
#1
DC
Dexter McCoil
Yr 2
#1
UTSA
Jeff Traylor #1
45–20 (69%)
· Yr 6 at school
OC
Justin Burke
Yr 3
#1
DC
Jess Loepp
Yr 3
#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 ✓