Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Army,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Army wins
Lean
Game Control
76%
UAB wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Army -6.5
O/U 55.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Army
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Army 2025 Schedule
Army's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 8/29 | Army vs Tarleton State | -14.5L27–30 | 47.5 | L27–30 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Army at Kansas State | +17.0W24–21 | 48.5 | W24–21 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/20 | Army vs North Texas | +2.5L38–45 | 50.5 | L38–45 | O | N |
| Thu 9/25 | Army at East Carolina | +3.5L6–28 | 52.5 | L6–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/4 | Army at UAB | -6.5W31–13 | 55.5 | W31–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/11 | Army vs Charlotte | -17.5W24–7 | 45.5 | W24–7 | U | N |
| Sat 10/18 | Army at Tulane | +10.0L17–24 | 44.5 | L17–24 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/1 | Army at Air Force | -1.5W20–17 | 48.5 | W20–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/8 | Army vs Temple | -7.5W14–13 | 45.5 | W14–13 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/22 | Army vs Tulsa | -10.0L25–26 | 43.5 | L25–26 | O | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Army at UTSA | +8.5W27–24 | 50.5 | W27–24 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 12/13 | Army vs Navy | +6.0L16–17 | 38.0 | L16–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 12/27 | Army vs UConn | -5.5W41–16 | 41.5 | W41–16 | O | Y |
UAB 2025 Schedule
UAB's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/28 | UAB vs Alabama State | -21.0W52–42 | 53.5 | W52–42 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | UAB at Navy | +20.5L24–38 | 59.0 | L24–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | UAB vs Akron | -12.5W31–28 | 58.5 | W31–28 | O | N |
| Sat 9/20 | UAB at Tennessee | +39.5L24–56 | 69.5 | L24–56 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/4 | UAB vs Army | +6.5L13–31 | 55.5 | L13–31 | U | N |
| Sat 10/11 | UAB at Florida Atlantic | +4.5L33–53 | 66.5 | L33–53 | O | N |
| Sat 10/18 | UAB vs Memphis | +23.5W31–24 | 59.5 | W31–24 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/1 | UAB at UConn | +10.0L19–38 | 61.5 | L19–38 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | UAB at Rice | -1.5L17–24 | 51.5 | L17–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/15 | UAB vs North Texas | +17.5L24–53 | 69.5 | L24–53 | O | N |
| Sat 11/22 | UAB vs South Florida | +21.5L18–48 | 68.5 | L18–48 | U | N |
| Sat 11/29 | UAB at Tulsa | +9.0W31–24 | 56.5 | W31–24 | U | 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
All 4 Agree
→ Army
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Army
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Army
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?
Army Edge
Army +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?
UAB Edge
UAB +29.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
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
Army
Jeff Monken #1
81–57 (59%)
· Yr 12 at school
OC
Cody Worley
Yr 2
#1
DC
Nate Woody
Yr 3
#1
UAB
Trent Dilfer #1
7–17 (29%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Alex Mortensen
Yr 3
#1
DC
Steve Russ
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: 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 ✓