Sat, Nov 8 2025
·
Week 11
·
🏟 Rynearson Stadium
Ypsilanti, MI
·
Turf
·
30,200 cap
Matchup Prediction
Bowling Green
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Bowling Green entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Bowling Green wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Bowling Green wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Eastern Michigan -3
O/U 49.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Eastern Michigan
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Bowling Green 2025 Schedule
Bowling Green's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 8/28 | Bowling Green vs Lafayette | -21.0W26–7 | 53.0 | W26–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Bowling Green at Cincinnati | +21.5L20–34 | 46.5 | L20–34 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/13 | Bowling Green vs Liberty | +6.0W23–13 | 51.5 | W23–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Bowling Green at Louisville | +26.5L17–40 | 50.5 | L17–40 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Bowling Green at Ohio | +7.5L20–35 | 49.5 | L20–35 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/11 | Bowling Green vs Toledo | +10.5W28–23 | 45.5 | W28–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/18 | Bowling Green vs Central Michigan | -3.0L6–27 | 43.5 | L6–27 | U | N |
| Sat 10/25 | Bowling Green at Kent State | -7.5L21–24 | 47.5 | L21–24 | U | N |
| Sat 11/1 | Bowling Green vs Buffalo | -2.5L3–28 | 44.5 | L3–28 | U | N |
| Sat 11/8 | Bowling Green at Eastern Michigan | +3.0L21–27 | 49.5 | L21–27 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 11/18 | Bowling Green vs Akron | -2.5L16–19 | 47.5 | L16–19 | U | N |
| Tue 11/25 | Bowling Green at Massachusetts | -14.0W45–14 | 44.5 | W45–14 | O | Y |
Eastern Michigan 2025 Schedule
Eastern Michigan's 2025 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/30 | Eastern Michigan at Texas State | +14.0L27–52 | 58.5 | L27–52 | O | N |
| Sat 9/6 | Eastern Michigan vs Long Island University | -22.5L23–28 | 54.5 | L23–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/13 | Eastern Michigan at Kentucky | +26.5L23–48 | 49.5 | L23–48 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/20 | Eastern Michigan vs Louisiana | +2.5W34–31 | 51.5 | W34–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/27 | Eastern Michigan at Central Michigan | +3.0L13–24 | 55.5 | L13–24 | U | N |
| Sat 10/4 | Eastern Michigan at Buffalo | +9.5L30–31 | 53.5 | L30–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/11 | Eastern Michigan vs Northern Illinois | +1.5W16–10 | 48.5 | W16–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/18 | Eastern Michigan at Miami (OH) | +12.5L30–44 | 47.5 | L30–44 | O | N |
| Sat 10/25 | Eastern Michigan vs Ohio | +11.5L21–28 | 60.5 | L21–28 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/8 | Eastern Michigan vs Bowling Green | -3.0W27–21 | 49.5 | W27–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/15 | Eastern Michigan at Ball State | -2.5W24–9 | 48.5 | W24–9 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Tue 11/25 | Eastern Michigan vs Western Michigan | +10.0L21–31 | 49.0 | L21–31 | 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
Both Agree
→ Eastern Michigan
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?
Bowling Green Edge
Bowling Green +0.13
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?
Bowling Green Edge
Bowling Green +7.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% 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 Bowling Green. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Bowling Green
Eddie George #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Greg Nosal
Yr 3
#1
DC
Steve Morrison
Yr 1
#1
Eastern Michigan
Chris Creighton #1
57–75 (43%)
· Yr 12 at school
OC
Mike Piatkowski
Yr 2
#1
DC
Ben Needham
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 ✓