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
Army
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Army entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Army wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Army wins
Lean
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Army
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Army 2026 Schedule
Army's 2026 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/5 | Army vs Bryant | -23.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/12 | Army vs South Florida | +4.5 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/26 | Army at Temple | -2 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/3 | Army at Louisiana Tech | -0.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/10 | Army vs Tulane | +1 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/17 | Army vs Florida Atlantic | -10 | — | — | — | — |
| Fri 10/23 | Army at Tulsa | -2 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/31 | Army at Memphis | +8 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/7 | Army vs Air Force | -8 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/21 | Army vs East Carolina | +2.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/28 | Army at Rice | -13.5 | — | — | — | — |
Rice 2026 Schedule
Rice's 2026 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/5 | Rice vs Houston Christian | -7.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/12 | Rice at Notre Dame | +35 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/19 | Rice vs Western Michigan | +10 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 9/26 | Rice at Fresno State | +20.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/3 | Rice vs UTSA | +15.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/10 | Rice at East Carolina | +23 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/17 | Rice vs Tulsa | +9 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 10/24 | Rice at Florida Atlantic | +11 | — | — | — | — |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/7 | Rice at North Texas | +24.5 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/14 | Rice vs Tulane | +17 | — | — | — | — |
| Thu 11/19 | Rice at Temple | +14 | — | — | — | — |
| Sat 11/28 | Rice vs Army | +13.5 | — | — | — | — |
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
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
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 (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?
Army Edge
Army +0.25
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?
Army Edge
Army +13.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Coaching Matchup
Army
Jeff Monken #51
89–63 (59%)
· Yr 13 at school
OC
Cody Worley
Yr 3
#105
DC
Nate Woody
Yr 3
#12
Rice
Scott Abell #123
5–8 (39%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Vince Munch
Yr 2
#124
DC
Jon Kay
Yr 2
#121
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 ✓