← College Football slate
Southern Miss Golden Eagles
1-0 · #119 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 7:45 PM ET
Jordan-Hare Stadium · 87° · 13 mph wind · Mostly sunny
Auburn Tigers
1-0 · #59 Elo
Spread —Total 53.5Moneyline USM +1773 · AUB -33582 books · best USM +1773 kalshi · AUB -3233 polymarketus
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
AUB -3358
72%
model margin AUB by 9.9
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.Lean +
Under 53.5
52%
model total 47.3
The read
On rating alone Auburn Tigers are 6.8 points better (#59 vs #119 of 240), and AUB add 3.1 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: AUB rushing ranks #13, USM defends it at #89; the other way USM #74 into AUB's #2. On the total the model sees 47.3 against 53.5.
Who has the edge
Model: AUB by 9.9
Rating
Clear edge
AUB
AUB rated 6.8 points better on Elo (#59 vs #119).
Home & rest
Clear edge
AUB
AUB gets 3.1 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
USM
USM passing ranks #57, AUB defends it at #80; the other way AUB #119 into USM's #19.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
AUB
AUB rushing ranks #13, USM defends it at #89; the other way USM #74 into AUB's #2.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
AUB
AUB third-down conversion ranks #76, USM defends it at #126; the other way USM #70 into AUB's #34.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
USM
AUB +1.0 per game over the last five, USM +46.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: AUB by 9.9
Southern Miss Golden EaglesAuburn Tigers
1443 Elo · #119
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
AUB +6.8 pts
1566 Elo · #59
road
Home field
AUB +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
even
7d
−10.2 pts vs AUB 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.
AUB +10.9 pts
+0.7 pts vs USM D
W · +46.0
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.
USM +22.5 pts
W · +1.0
—
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
- ▸AUB defense (#5 rush success rate allowed) against a USM offense ranked #105
- ▸USM defense (#19 passing ppa / play allowed) against a AUB offense ranked #119
- ▸AUB defense (#6 yards / rush allowed) against a USM offense ranked #105
- ▸AUB power success (#18) against a USM defense ranked #113 at stopping it
- ▸USM defense (#42 pass explosiveness allowed) against a AUB offense ranked #133
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.
Southern Miss Golden Eagles offense vs Auburn Tigers defense
ranks of 135| USM off | AUB def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 51% | 51% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 66% | 68% | · |
| Plays / game | 66 | 64 | · |
| Possession / game | 27:43 | 30:34 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.28#57 | +0.27#80 | · |
| Pass success rate | 40%#89 | 44%#99 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.73#15 | 1.57#80 | USM |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.6#50 | 7.2#73 | · |
| Completion % | 64%#52 | 62%#77 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 5.1%#129 | 1.0%#132 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.10#74 | −0.11#2 | AUB |
| Rush success rate | 39%#105 | 33%#5 | AUB |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#81 | 0.89#28 | AUB |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.96#64 | 2.25#4 | AUB |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 19%#69 | 26%#5 | AUB |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 67%#98 | 70%#58 | AUB |
| Yards / rush | 3.8#105 | 2.9#6 | AUB |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.09#82 | −0.04#10 | AUB |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.33#56 | +0.30#70 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 40%#70 | 35%#34 | AUB |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.60#81 | 3.37#42 | AUB |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.3%#90 | 16.6%#51 | AUB |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.15#54 | 1.42#48 | · |
Auburn Tigers offense vs Southern Miss Golden Eagles defense
ranks of 135| AUB off | USM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 48% | 45% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 68% | · |
| Plays / game | 66 | 69 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:26 | 32:16 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.13#119 | +0.13#19 | USM |
| Pass success rate | 40%#88 | 41%#61 | USM |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.30#133 | 1.49#42 | USM |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.5#102 | 6.9#56 | USM |
| Completion % | 61%#81 | 63%#87 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 3.0%#84 | 2.6%#56 | USM |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.24#13 | +0.14#89 | AUB |
| Rush success rate | 47%#30 | 43%#75 | AUB |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.00#54 | 1.01#92 | AUB |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.19#23 | 2.99#88 | AUB |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 15%#20 | 18%#73 | AUB |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 80%#18 | 78%#113 | AUB |
| Yards / rush | 4.7#43 | 4.2#64 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.15#47 | +0.03#30 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.21#104 | +0.27#61 | USM |
| Third-down conversion | 39%#76 | 46%#126 | AUB |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.90#50 | 3.94#97 | AUB |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.8%#100 | 17.4%#31 | USM |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.67#4 | 2.23#3 | · |
Season
| USM | AUB | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 49.0 | Points for / game | 17.0 |
| 3.0 | Points against / game | 16.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| USM | AUB | |
|---|---|---|
| 1443 | Elo | 1566 |
| #119 of 240 | Rank | #59 of 240 |
| +0.5 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +2.5 |
| +1.7 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +10.7 |
| 1379 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1520 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| USM | AUB | |
|---|---|---|
| −20.7 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | — |
| 0.177 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.170 |
| 0.103 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.069 |
| 39% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | 43% / 38% |
| 1.34 / 1.21 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.14 / 1.29 |
| 603 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | — |
| 90% | Returning production | — |
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
- AUB +6.8 pts
- Home field
- AUB +3.1 pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- -0.2 pts on the total
- Model margin
- AUB by 9.9
- Model total
- 47.3 vs 53.5
Market · 2 books
- Spread
- —
- Total
- 53.5
- Moneyline
- USM +1773 · AUB -3358
- Best price
- USM +1773 kalshi · AUB -3233 polymarketus
| Book | AUB spread | Total | USM ML | AUB ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| kalshi | — | — | +1773 | -3484 |
| polymarketus | — | 53.5 (-113/+108) | — | -3233 |
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.