← College Football slate
Colorado State Rams
1-0 · #213 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 26, 12:00 AM ET
Alamodome · Indoors
UTSA Roadrunners
1-0 · #43 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone UTSA Roadrunners are 15.4 points better (#43 vs #213 of 240), and UTSA add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: UTSA third-down conversion ranks #71, CSU defends it at #130; the other way CSU #122 into UTSA's #29.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
UTSA
UTSA rated 15.4 points better on Elo (#43 vs #213).
Home & rest
Even
—
UTSA gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
UTSA
UTSA passing ranks #43, CSU defends it at #119; the other way CSU #96 into UTSA's #85.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
UTSA
UTSA rushing ranks #35, CSU defends it at #104; the other way CSU #79 into UTSA's #84.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
UTSA
UTSA third-down conversion ranks #71, CSU defends it at #130; the other way CSU #122 into UTSA's #29.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
UTSA
UTSA +29.0 per game over the last five, CSU +22.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Colorado State RamsUTSA Roadrunners
1330 Elo · #213
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
UTSA +15.4 pts
1606 Elo · #43
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−6.5 pts vs UTSA 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.
UTSA +18.2 pts
+11.8 pts vs CSU D
W · +22.0
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.
UTSA +3.5 pts
W · +29.0
−15.6
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
UTSA +19.3 pts
+3.7
—
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
- ▸UTSA defense (#20 power success allowed) against a CSU offense ranked #131
- ▸UTSA defense (#18 havoc rate) against a CSU offense ranked #124
- ▸UTSA yards / rush (#24) against a CSU defense ranked #122 at stopping it
- ▸UTSA pass success rate (#21) against a CSU defense ranked #116 at stopping it
- ▸UTSA defense (#29 third-down conversion allowed) against a CSU offense ranked #122
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.
Colorado State Rams offense vs UTSA Roadrunners defense
ranks of 135| CSU off | UTSA def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 54% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 65% | 65% | · |
| Plays / game | 58 | 52 | · |
| Possession / game | 26:50 | 28:08 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.20#96 | +0.29#85 | · |
| Pass success rate | 38%#109 | 40%#49 | UTSA |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.51#90 | 1.82#130 | CSU |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.6#99 | 7.3#82 | · |
| Completion % | 62%#72 | 60%#42 | UTSA |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.0%#51 | 1.8%#103 | CSU |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.09#79 | +0.12#84 | · |
| Rush success rate | 44%#65 | 40%#45 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.90#96 | 0.97#73 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.97#62 | 2.86#61 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 19%#75 | 18%#75 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 59%#131 | 64%#20 | UTSA |
| Yards / rush | 3.6#118 | 4.3#71 | UTSA |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.06#99 | +0.12#82 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.25#88 | +0.30#69 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 33%#122 | 35%#29 | UTSA |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.52#87 | 4.20#116 | CSU |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 18.8%#124 | 18.5%#18 | UTSA |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.67#115 | 1.38#57 | UTSA |
UTSA Roadrunners offense vs Colorado State Rams defense
ranks of 135| UTSA off | CSU def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 52% | 42% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 70% | 73% | · |
| Plays / game | 57 | 65 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:52 | 33:10 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.33#43 | +0.38#119 | UTSA |
| Pass success rate | 47%#21 | 46%#116 | UTSA |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.50#95 | 1.72#122 | UTSA |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.2#68 | 8.2#119 | UTSA |
| Completion % | 67%#21 | 63%#83 | UTSA |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.5%#68 | 3.7%#20 | CSU |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.19#35 | +0.17#104 | UTSA |
| Rush success rate | 45%#48 | 46%#106 | UTSA |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.17#6 | 0.94#58 | UTSA |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.81#93 | 3.26#122 | UTSA |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 21%#103 | 15%#120 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 73%#67 | 77%#108 | UTSA |
| Yards / rush | 5.1#24 | 5.0#122 | UTSA |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.14#54 | +0.20#121 | UTSA |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.45#21 | +0.34#94 | UTSA |
| Third-down conversion | 40%#71 | 46%#130 | UTSA |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.23#27 | 4.03#103 | UTSA |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.0%#84 | 13.2%#115 | UTSA |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.92#20 | 1.33#60 | UTSA |
Season
| CSU | UTSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 35.0 | Points for / game | 45.0 |
| 13.0 | Points against / game | 16.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| CSU | UTSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1330 | Elo | 1606 |
| #213 of 240 | Rank | #43 of 240 |
| −2.2 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +10.4 |
| −1.4 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +4.2 |
| 1336 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1500 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| CSU | UTSA | |
|---|---|---|
| −11.6 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −1.1 |
| 0.126 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.230 |
| 0.236 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.181 |
| 40% / 45% | Success rate (off / def) | 45% / 40% |
| 1.21 / 1.27 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.34 / 1.38 |
| 640 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 656 |
| 40% | Returning production | 67% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2025 | UTSA 17 at CSU 16 | UTSA · CSU covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- UTSA +15.4 pts
- Home field
- UTSA +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- —
- Total
- —
- Moneyline
- —
Per-book prices appear once the multi-book feed has this game (about a week out).
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.