Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Rice,
while Game Control favors UAB.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Rice wins
Lean
Game Control
49.4%
UAB wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
UAB -1.5
O/U 51.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
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 |
Rice 2025 Schedule
Rice's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Rice at Louisiana | +14.5W14–12 | 49.5 | W14–12 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | Rice vs Houston | +13.5L9–35 | 38.5 | L9–35 | O | N |
| Sat 9/13 | Rice vs Prairie View A&M | -29.5W38–17 | 48.5 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Thu 9/18 | Rice at Charlotte | -1.5W28–17 | 41.5 | W28–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Rice at Navy | +14.0L13–21 | 45.5 | L13–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/4 | Rice vs Florida Atlantic | -4.5L21–27 | 54.5 | L21–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/11 | Rice at UTSA | +8.5L13–61 | 48.5 | L13–61 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/25 | Rice vs UConn | +10.5W37–34 | 48.5 | W37–34 | O | Y |
| Fri 10/31 | Rice vs Memphis | +13.5L14–38 | 48.5 | L14–38 | O | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Rice vs UAB | +1.5W24–17 | 51.5 | W24–17 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/22 | Rice vs North Texas | +18.5L24–56 | 57.0 | L24–56 | O | N |
| Sat 11/29 | Rice at South Florida | +28.5L3–52 | 57.5 | L3–52 | U | N |
| Fri 1/2 | Rice vs Texas State | +19.5L10–41 | 55.5 | L10–41 | U | 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
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?
Rice Edge
Rice +0.07
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
UAB Edge
UAB +1.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 49.4% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Rice
66.5 — 15.0 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
Rice won by 7
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
UAB
Trent Dilfer #1
7–17 (29%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Alex Mortensen
Yr 3
#1
DC
Steve Russ
Yr 1
#1
Rice
Scott Abell #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Vince Munch
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jon Kay
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 ✓