Preseason projection — This game has not yet been played and 2026 in-season data is not yet available.
Edges are based on 2025 full-season performance.
Confidence will increase once in-season games are logged.
Matchup Prediction
Navy
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Navy entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Navy wins
Lean
Game Control
75.9%
Navy wins
Solid
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Navy
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Navy 2026 Schedule
Navy's 2026 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/5 | Navy vs Towson | -25.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/12 | Navy at Florida Atlantic | -7.5 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 9/25 | Navy at UAB | -15.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/3 | Navy at Air Force | -5.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/10 | Navy vs Tulsa | -9.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/17 | Navy at UTSA | +2.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/24 | Navy vs North Texas | +1.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/31 | Navy at Notre Dame | +26.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/7 | Navy vs Temple | -9 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/21 | Navy vs Memphis | +0.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/28 | Navy at Charlotte | -22 | — | — | — | — |
UAB 2026 Schedule
UAB's 2026 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/5 | UAB at Illinois | +28.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/12 | UAB vs UL Monroe | -6 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/19 | UAB at Louisiana | +11.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Fri 9/25 | UAB vs Navy | +15.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/3 | UAB vs Samford | -7.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/10 | UAB at Memphis | +24 | — | — | — | — |
| Thu 10/15 | UAB vs East Carolina | +18 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/31 | UAB at South Florida | +25 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/7 | UAB vs Charlotte | -9 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/14 | UAB at Temple | +14 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/21 | UAB vs UTSA | +15.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/28 | UAB at North Texas | +24.5 | — | — | — | — |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2025 season (prior year)
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Navy
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Navy
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Navy
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 (prior year — 2026 data not yet available) ·
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?
Navy Edge
Navy +0.29
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Navy Edge
Navy +27.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Coaching Matchup
Navy
Brian Newberry #39
26–12 (68%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Drew Cronic
Yr 3
#26
DC
Vacant
Yr 1
#59
UAB
Alex Mortensen #77
2–4 (33%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Alex Mortensen
Yr 3
#67
DC
Todd Grantham
Yr 1
#132
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 ✓