← College Football slate
Memphis Tigers
2-0 · #36 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 6:00 PM ET
Albertsons Stadium · 76° · 18 mph wind · Mostly sunny
Boise State Broncos
0-1 · #66 Elo
Spread BOIS -6.5Total 52.5Moneyline MEM +260 · BOIS -330
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
MEM +260
55%
model margin MEM by 2.4
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.Lean +
MEM +6.5
53%
8.9 pts from the number
TotalModel total (scoring ratings + weather + roof) versus the posted total. Same caveat as the spread: a lean, tracked in public.Lean
Under 52.5
51%
model total 50.9
The read
On rating alone Memphis Tigers are 5.4 points better (#36 vs #66 of 240), and BOIS add 3.1 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: MEM rushing ranks #5, BOIS defends it at #119; the other way BOIS #46 into MEM's #33. The model lands on MEM by 2.4 against a market BOIS by 6.5, so the spread lean is MEM by 8.9 points — a lean, not an edge: against closing lines this model covers about 49%.
Who has the edge
Model: MEM by 2.4 · market BOIS by 6.5
Rating
Clear edge
MEM
MEM rated 5.4 points better on Elo (#66 vs #36).
Home & rest
Clear edge
BOIS
BOIS gets 3.1 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
BOIS
BOIS passing ranks #62, MEM defends it at #117; the other way MEM #79 into BOIS's #7.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
MEM
MEM rushing ranks #5, BOIS defends it at #119; the other way BOIS #46 into MEM's #33.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
BOIS third-down conversion ranks #26, MEM defends it at #77; the other way MEM #47 into BOIS's #22.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
MEM
BOIS −7.0 per game over the last five, MEM +12.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
BOIS
Consensus has BOIS by 6.5; the model says MEM by 2.4.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: MEM by 2.4 · market BOIS by 6.5
Memphis TigersBoise State Broncos
1646 Elo · #36
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
MEM +5.4 pts
1548 Elo · #66
road
Home field
BOIS +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
even
7d
−2.6 pts vs BOIS 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.
BOIS +1.3 pts
−1.3 pts vs MEM D
W W · +12.0
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.
MEM +9.5 pts
L · −7.0
+7.6
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
MEM +4.5 pts
+3.1
MEM +6.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
BOIS +6.5 pts
BOIS -6.5
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
- ▸MEM rush explosiveness (#7) against a BOIS defense ranked #133 at stopping it
- ▸MEM rushing ppa / play (#5) against a BOIS defense ranked #119 at stopping it
- ▸MEM points / scoring opportunity (#23) against a BOIS defense ranked #111 at stopping it
- ▸MEM yards / rush (#27) against a BOIS defense ranked #113 at stopping it
- ▸MEM line yards / rush (#11) against a BOIS defense ranked #87 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.
Memphis Tigers offense vs Boise State Broncos defense
ranks of 135| MEM off | BOIS def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 50% | 46% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 68% | 63% | · |
| Plays / game | 64 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:38 | 27:08 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.23#79 | +0.08#7 | BOIS |
| Pass success rate | 42%#69 | 33%#6 | BOIS |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.50#94 | 1.68#115 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.2#66 | 6.2#19 | BOIS |
| Completion % | 67%#16 | 54%#8 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.9%#80 | 3.5%#25 | BOIS |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.30#5 | +0.20#119 | MEM |
| Rush success rate | 49%#12 | 41%#50 | MEM |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.17#7 | 1.22#133 | MEM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.33#11 | 2.98#87 | MEM |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 19%#74 | 19%#60 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#51 | 67%#39 | · |
| Yards / rush | 5.1#27 | 4.9#113 | MEM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.22#23 | +0.07#56 | MEM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.34#55 | +0.22#33 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 42%#47 | 34%#22 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.41#23 | 4.14#111 | MEM |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.1%#50 | 16.6%#50 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.92#21 | 1.64#28 | · |
Boise State Broncos offense vs Memphis Tigers defense
ranks of 135| BOIS off | MEM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 67% | 68% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 62 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:51 | 28:22 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.27#62 | +0.37#117 | BOIS |
| Pass success rate | 41%#81 | 45%#111 | BOIS |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.59#43 | 1.63#104 | BOIS |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.3#65 | 7.5#96 | BOIS |
| Completion % | 58%#108 | 61%#53 | MEM |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 3.0%#81 | 2.3%#76 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#46 | +0.04#33 | · |
| Rush success rate | 43%#79 | 39%#32 | MEM |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.00#55 | 0.98#80 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.11#39 | 2.57#13 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#32 | 22%#29 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 79%#22 | 73%#87 | BOIS |
| Yards / rush | 4.6#54 | 3.7#36 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.17#38 | +0.11#75 | BOIS |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#73 | +0.37#104 | BOIS |
| Third-down conversion | 46%#26 | 40%#77 | BOIS |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.66#72 | 4.00#101 | BOIS |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.1%#49 | 17.4%#32 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.50#96 | 1.46#44 | MEM |
Season
| MEM | BOIS | |
|---|---|---|
| 2-0 | Record | 0-1 |
| 34.5 | Points for / game | 27.0 |
| 22.5 | Points against / game | 34.0 |
| 1-0 / 1-0 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 2-0 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 1-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| W W | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| MEM | BOIS | |
|---|---|---|
| 1646 | Elo | 1548 |
| #36 of 240 | Rank | #66 of 240 |
| +3.3 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +3.7 |
| +5.0 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +5.9 |
| 1480 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1890 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| MEM | BOIS | |
|---|---|---|
| +0.3 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +5.1 |
| 0.256 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.204 |
| 0.193 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.123 |
| 45% / 42% | Success rate (off / def) | 42% / 36% |
| 1.33 / 1.31 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.28 / 1.42 |
| 670 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 641 |
| 6% | Returning production | 66% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2023 | BOIS 32 at MEM 35 | MEM · BOIS covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- MEM +5.4 pts
- Home field
- BOIS +3.1 pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- -2.2 pts on the total
- Model margin
- MEM by 2.4
- Model total
- 50.9 vs 52.5
Market · 1 books
- Spread
- BOIS -6.5
- Total
- 52.5
- Moneyline
- MEM +260 · BOIS -330
- Best price
- MEM +260 fanduel · BOIS -330 fanduel
| Book | BOIS spread | Total | MEM ML | BOIS ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fanduel | — | — | +260 | -330 |
Spreadopened BOIS -6.5 · now BOIS -6.5
Totalopened 52.5 · now 52.5
Consensus of the books we track, hourly, since we first priced the game. The arrow on the spread is from the home side: ▲ means the home side is laying more.
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.