← College Football slate
Rutgers Scarlet Knights
0-1 · #174 Elo
at
Fri, Sep 11, 7:30 PM ET
Alumni Stadium (Chestnut Hill, MA) · 70° · Mostly sunny
Boston College Eagles
0-1 · #191 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline RUTG +152 · BC -1783 books · best RUTG +163 polymarketus · BC -178 polymarket
WinnerProbability the picked team wins, from a normal on the model's predicted margin. Backtested and calibrated: when it says 65%, it has been right about 63–65% of the time.Lean
BC -178
53%
model margin BC by 1.3
SpreadWhich side the model's margin lands on versus the spread. A lean, not a proven edge: against closing NFL lines the model covers about 49% in backtest, so this is tracked in public rather than sold.—
No line
—
TotalModel total (scoring ratings + weather + roof) versus the posted total. Same caveat as the spread: a lean, tracked in public.—
No line
—
model total 59.3
The read
On rating alone Rutgers Scarlet Knights are 1.4 points better (#174 vs #191 of 240), and BC add 3.1 for home field; RUTG carry a rest edge worth 0.3. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: BC rushing ranks #103, RUTG defends it at #133; the other way RUTG #80 into BC's #82.
Who has the edge
Model: BC by 1.3
Rating
Slight edge
RUTG
RUTG rated 1.4 points better on Elo (#191 vs #174).
Home & rest
Clear edge
BC
BC gets 3.1 points for home field and RUTG 0.3 for rest.
Passing game
Even
—
RUTG passing ranks #39, BC defends it at #120; the other way BC #65 into RUTG's #133.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
BC
BC rushing ranks #103, RUTG defends it at #133; the other way RUTG #80 into BC's #82.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
RUTG third-down conversion ranks #41, BC defends it at #92; the other way BC #77 into RUTG's #84.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Slight edge
RUTG
BC −19.0 per game over the last five, RUTG −16.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: BC by 1.3
Rutgers Scarlet KnightsBoston College Eagles
1390 Elo · #174
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
RUTG +1.4 pts
1365 Elo · #191
road
Home field
BC +3.1 pts
home
8d
Rest
RUTG +0.3 pts
6d
+0.8 pts vs BC D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
BC +0.7 pts
+1.5 pts vs RUTG D
L · −16.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
RUTG +1.5 pts
L · −19.0
—
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
not priced
—
Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).
Dissect the matchup
CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)Biggest mismatches
- ▸RUTG yards / pass attempt (#19) against a BC defense ranked #121 at stopping it
- ▸RUTG turnovers / game (#17) against a BC defense ranked #103 at stopping it
- ▸RUTG passing ppa / play (#39) against a BC defense ranked #120 at stopping it
- ▸BC pass success rate (#50) against a RUTG defense ranked #131 at stopping it
- ▸RUTG standard-down ppa (#41) against a BC defense ranked #115 at stopping it
A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.
Rutgers Scarlet Knights offense vs Boston College Eagles defense
ranks of 135| RUTG off | BC def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 50% | 47% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 71% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 59 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:32 | 30:44 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.34#39 | +0.39#120 | RUTG |
| Pass success rate | 47%#18 | 42%#72 | RUTG |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.51#88 | 1.74#126 | RUTG |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.4#19 | 8.2#121 | RUTG |
| Completion % | 62%#69 | 64%#100 | RUTG |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.3%#18 | 3.2%#34 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.09#80 | +0.12#82 | · |
| Rush success rate | 46%#42 | 44%#86 | RUTG |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.86#117 | 1.04#105 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.03#55 | 2.79#51 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 15%#21 | 21%#43 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#46 | 70%#60 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.7#112 | 5.1#124 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.16#41 | +0.18#115 | RUTG |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.33#57 | +0.36#99 | RUTG |
| Third-down conversion | 43%#41 | 41%#92 | RUTG |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.38#101 | 3.82#84 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 15.9%#79 | 12.3%#126 | RUTG |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.92#17 | 1.00#103 | RUTG |
Boston College Eagles offense vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights defense
ranks of 135| BC off | RUTG def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 58% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 70% | · |
| Plays / game | 63 | 54 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:16 | 27:28 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.25#65 | +0.44#133 | BC |
| Pass success rate | 44%#50 | 49%#131 | BC |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.40#123 | 1.55#65 | RUTG |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.4#60 | 8.6#129 | BC |
| Completion % | 63%#57 | 65%#111 | BC |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.3%#16 | 2.2%#82 | BC |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.05#103 | +0.26#133 | BC |
| Rush success rate | 42%#91 | 47%#112 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.89#106 | 1.13#130 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.75#105 | 3.15#109 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 18%#54 | 19%#62 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 80%#14 | 66%#28 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.3#127 | 6.9#135 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.09#85 | +0.29#134 | BC |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.32#62 | +0.36#100 | BC |
| Third-down conversion | 39%#77 | 40%#84 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.39#98 | 4.45#130 | BC |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.5%#92 | 12.4%#124 | BC |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.75#121 | 0.92#112 | · |
Season
| RUTG | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-1 | Record | 0-1 |
| 21.0 | Points for / game | 15.0 |
| 37.0 | Points against / game | 34.0 |
| 0-1 / 0-0 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| L | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| RUTG | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 1390 | Elo | 1365 |
| #174 of 240 | Rank | #191 of 240 |
| +1.6 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | −0.4 |
| −2.0 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +0.9 |
| 978 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1558 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| RUTG | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| — | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −2.5 |
| 0.214 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.159 |
| 0.314 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.233 |
| 47% / 47% | Success rate (off / def) | 42% / 43% |
| 1.22 / 1.33 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.21 / 1.39 |
| — | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 660 |
| — | Returning production | 16% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
No meetings in our history.
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- RUTG +1.4 pts
- Home field
- BC +3.1 pts
- Rest
- RUTG +0.3 pts
- Weather / roof
- 0.0 pts on the total
- Model margin
- BC by 1.3
- Model total
- 59.3 vs —
Market · 3 books
- Spread
- —
- Total
- —
- Moneyline
- RUTG +152 · BC -178
- Best price
- RUTG +163 polymarketus · BC -178 polymarket
| Book | BC spread | Total | RUTG ML | BC ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| kalshi | — | — | +152 | -191 |
| polymarket | — | — | +150 | -178 |
| polymarketus | — | — | +163 | -178 |
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.