Sat, Nov 15 2025
·
Week 12
·
🏟 Protective Stadium
Birmingham, AL
·
Turf
·
47,100 cap
North Texas✈ 597 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
North Texas
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
North Texas entering this game.
Momentum Control
80.6%
North Texas wins
Strong
Game Control
75.9%
North Texas wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
North Texas -17.5
O/U 69.5
ESPN Bet
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → North Texas
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
North Texas 2025 Schedule
North Texas's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | North Texas vs Lamar | -27.5W51–0 | 63.5 | W51–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/6 | North Texas at Western Michigan | -12.0W33–30 | 56.0 | W33–30 | O | N |
| Sat 9/13 | North Texas vs Washington State | -6.5W59–10 | 57.5 | W59–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | North Texas at Army | -2.5W45–38 | 50.5 | W45–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | North Texas vs South Alabama | -13.5W36–22 | 63.5 | W36–22 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 10/10 | North Texas vs South Florida | -2.5L36–63 | 68.5 | L36–63 | O | N |
| Sat 10/18 | North Texas vs UTSA | -4.0W55–17 | 64.5 | W55–17 | O | Y |
| Fri 10/24 | North Texas at Charlotte | -25.5W54–20 | 60.5 | W54–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/1 | North Texas vs Navy | -6.5W31–17 | 68.5 | W31–17 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/15 | North Texas at UAB | -17.5W53–24 | 69.5 | W53–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/22 | North Texas at Rice | -18.5W56–24 | 57.0 | W56–24 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/28 | North Texas vs Temple | -20.0W52–25 | 65.5 | W52–25 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/5 | North Texas at Tulane | -1.5L21–34 | 66.5 | L21–34 | U | N |
| Sat 12/27 | North Texas vs San Diego State | -7.5W49–47 | 55.5 | W49–47 | O | N |
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
→ North Texas
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ North Texas
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ North Texas
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?
North Texas Edge
North Texas +2.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 80.6% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
North Texas Edge
North Texas +40.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on North Texas 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
North Texas
Eric Morris #1
11–13 (46%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Jordan Davis
Yr 3
#1
DC
Skyler Cassity
Yr 1
#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 ✓