← College Football slate
South Alabama Jaguars
1-0 · #97 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 7:00 PM ET
Yulman Stadium · 92° · 41% precip · Mostly sunny
Tulane Green Wave
0-1 · #56 Elo
Spread TULN -10Total 55.5Moneyline USA +300 · TULN -380
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.Strong
TULN -380
71%
model margin TULN by 9.4
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.Coin flip
USA +10
50%
0.6 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 55.5
53%
model total 45.9
The read
On rating alone Tulane Green Wave are 6.3 points better (#56 vs #97 of 240), and TULN add 3.1 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: TULN passing ranks #27, USA defends it at #112; the other way USA #78 into TULN's #74. The model lands on TULN by 9.4, essentially the market's number — no spread lean. On the total the model sees 45.9 against 55.5.
Who has the edge
Model: TULN by 9.4 · market TULN by 10
Rating
Clear edge
TULN
TULN rated 6.3 points better on Elo (#56 vs #97).
Home & rest
Clear edge
TULN
TULN gets 3.1 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
TULN
TULN passing ranks #27, USA defends it at #112; the other way USA #78 into TULN's #74.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
TULN
TULN rushing ranks #66, USA defends it at #108; the other way USA #60 into TULN's #63.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
USA third-down conversion ranks #39, TULN defends it at #70; the other way TULN #44 into USA's #57.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
USA
TULN −14.0 per game over the last five, USA +25.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
TULN
Consensus has TULN by 10; the model says TULN by 9.4.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: TULN by 9.4 · market TULN by 10
South Alabama JaguarsTulane Green Wave
1462 Elo · #97
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TULN +6.3 pts
1576 Elo · #56
road
Home field
TULN +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
even
7d
−9.7 pts vs TULN 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.
TULN +8.2 pts
−1.5 pts vs USA D
W · +25.0
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.
USA +19.5 pts
L · −14.0
USA +10
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
TULN +10.0 pts
TULN -10
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
- ▸USA completion % (#12) against a TULN defense ranked #129 at stopping it
- ▸TULN power success (#29) against a USA defense ranked #135 at stopping it
- ▸TULN passing ppa / play (#27) against a USA defense ranked #112 at stopping it
- ▸TULN line yards / rush (#24) against a USA defense ranked #108 at stopping it
- ▸TULN points / scoring opportunity (#53) against a USA defense ranked #126 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.
South Alabama Jaguars offense vs Tulane Green Wave defense
ranks of 135| USA off | TULN def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 38% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 72% | · |
| Plays / game | 70 | 66 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:09 | 29:08 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.23#78 | +0.26#74 | · |
| Pass success rate | 40%#92 | 46%#121 | USA |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.53#81 | 1.40#12 | TULN |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.0#77 | 7.7#106 | USA |
| Completion % | 68%#12 | 68%#129 | USA |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.9%#45 | 1.9%#98 | USA |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.14#60 | +0.09#63 | · |
| Rush success rate | 43%#75 | 44%#91 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.02#49 | 0.90#35 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.03#56 | 2.97#84 | USA |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#26 | 17%#91 | USA |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 76%#40 | 71%#66 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.5#57 | 3.6#25 | TULN |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.10#70 | +0.09#67 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#72 | +0.32#83 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 43%#39 | 40%#70 | USA |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.01#40 | 3.65#65 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 13.0%#31 | 16.5%#52 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.00#33 | 1.79#16 | · |
Tulane Green Wave offense vs South Alabama Jaguars defense
ranks of 135| TULN off | USA def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 45% | 44% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 67% | · |
| Plays / game | 64 | 65 | · |
| Possession / game | 30:52 | 27:57 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#27 | +0.34#112 | TULN |
| Pass success rate | 48%#15 | 40%#48 | TULN |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.54#75 | 1.77#128 | TULN |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.1#30 | 7.2#71 | TULN |
| Completion % | 62%#73 | 61%#56 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 3.5%#104 | 1.8%#104 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.11#66 | +0.18#108 | TULN |
| Rush success rate | 44%#59 | 47%#113 | TULN |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.89#105 | 0.92#49 | USA |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.18#24 | 3.15#108 | TULN |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 17%#41 | 17%#102 | TULN |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 78%#29 | 91%#135 | TULN |
| Yards / rush | 4.5#58 | 4.8#108 | TULN |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.15#50 | +0.17#114 | TULN |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.39#34 | +0.37#103 | TULN |
| Third-down conversion | 42%#44 | 38%#57 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.88#53 | 4.35#126 | TULN |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 12.5%#21 | 14.6%#93 | TULN |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.21#61 | 1.25#71 | · |
Season
| USA | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 0-1 |
| 39.0 | Points for / game | 3.0 |
| 14.0 | Points against / game | 17.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 0-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| USA | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| 1462 | Elo | 1576 |
| #97 of 240 | Rank | #56 of 240 |
| +0.1 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | −2.3 |
| −0.8 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +9.8 |
| 1358 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1619 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| USA | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| — | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −4.3 |
| 0.159 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.219 |
| 0.238 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.154 |
| 42% / 43% | Success rate (off / def) | 46% / 45% |
| 1.21 / 1.27 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.19 / 1.17 |
| — | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 665 |
| — | Returning production | 21% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2025 | TULN 33 at USA 31 | TULN · USA covered |
| 2023 | USA 17 at TULN 37 | TULN · TULN covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- TULN +6.3 pts
- Home field
- TULN +3.1 pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- 0.0 pts on the total
- Model margin
- TULN by 9.4
- Model total
- 45.9 vs 55.5
Market · 1 books
- Spread
- TULN -10
- Total
- 55.5
- Moneyline
- USA +300 · TULN -380
- Best price
- USA +300 draftkings · TULN -380 draftkings
| Book | TULN spread | Total | USA ML | TULN ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| draftkings | — | — | +300 | -380 |
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.