Ohio at South Alabama Week 3 College Football Matchup Ohio at South Alabama Matchup - Week 3
Sat, Sep 19 2026 · Week 3 · 🏟 Hancock Whitney Stadium Mobile, AL · Turf · 25,000 cap
Ohio✈ 374 mi-1 hr TZ
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.
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Ohio
26
South Alabama
28
P&R Line South Alabama -2
P&R Total O/U 53.5
Confidence 69 Good
Matchup Prediction
Ohio has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor Ohio entering this game.
Momentum Control
61.3%
Ohio wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Ohio wins
Lean
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Ohio · 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Ohio 2026 Schedule
Ohio's 2026 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/5Ohio at Nebraska+20.5
Sat 9/12Ohio vs Jacksonville State+4.5
Sat 9/19Ohio at South Alabama+2
Sat 9/26Ohio vs Stonehill-11.5
Sat 10/3Ohio at Kent State-4
Sat 10/10Ohio vs Central Michigan+1
Sat 10/17Ohio at Sacramento State-3
Sat 10/24Ohio vs Eastern Michigan-2.5
— Bye Week —
Tue 11/3Ohio at Akron-1
Tue 11/10Ohio at Miami (OH)+13.5
Tue 11/17Ohio vs Ball State-14
Fri 11/27Ohio vs Toledo+3.5
South Alabama 2026 Schedule
South Alabama's 2026 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
— Bye Week —
Sat 9/12South Alabama at Tulane+12.5
Sat 9/19South Alabama vs Ohio-2
Sat 9/26South Alabama at Kentucky+17
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2025 season (prior year)
Ohio PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Ohio
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Ohio
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Ohio
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Ohio #42
+0.445
South Alabama #80
+0.283
Ohio Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Ohio #60
+0.614
South Alabama #79
+0.432
Ohio Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Ohio #86
0.149
South Alabama #94
0.146
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Ohio Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Ohio #84
+7.898
South Alabama #40
+6.847
Ohio Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Ohio #41
+0.881
South Alabama #85
+0.828
Ohio Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Ohio #49
70.1
South Alabama #80
71.4
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Ohio Edge
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
Ohio Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Ohio #114
-10.3
South Alabama #118
-11.8
Offense Rating
Ohio #126
7.5
South Alabama #119
8.6
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Ohio #96
17.7
South Alabama #113
20.4
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Ohio Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Ohio #67
0.75
South Alabama #82
0.73
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Ohio #102
0.58
South Alabama #88
1.55
Ohio +0.02
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? Ohio Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Ohio #94
54.0
South Alabama #53
35.3
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Ohio #29
28.6
South Alabama #110
51.2
Ohio +18.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Coaching Matchup
Ohio
John Hauser #77
1–0 (100%) · Yr 1 at school
OC Scott Isphording Yr 2 #109
DC Kurt Mattix Yr 1 #23
Staff Rating
2.74 #66
South Alabama
Major Applewhite #75
11–14 (44%) · Yr 3 at school
OC Paul Petrino Yr 1 #125
DC Jason Washington Yr 1 #68
Staff Rating
2.31 #103
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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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