← College Football slate
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
1-0 · #70 Elo
at
Sat, Oct 17, 12:00 AM ET
Malone Stadium
UL Monroe Warhawks
0-1 · #236 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone Louisiana Tech Bulldogs are 18.9 points better (#70 vs #236 of 240), and ULM add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: LT third-down conversion ranks #55, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into LT's #64.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
LT
LT rated 18.9 points better on Elo (#236 vs #70).
Home & rest
Even
—
ULM gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
LT
LT passing ranks #99, ULM defends it at #100; the other way ULM #89 into LT's #22.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
LT
LT rushing ranks #56, ULM defends it at #54; the other way ULM #105 into LT's #26.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
LT
LT third-down conversion ranks #55, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into LT's #64.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
LT
ULM −49.0 per game over the last five, LT +74.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Louisiana Tech BulldogsUL Monroe Warhawks
1525 Elo · #70
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
LT +18.9 pts
1185 Elo · #236
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
+10.6 pts vs ULM 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.
LT +24.9 pts
−14.3 pts vs LT D
W · +74.0
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.
LT +61.5 pts
L · −49.0
−1.3
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
LT +20.3 pts
−21.6
—
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
- ▸LT defense (#10 havoc rate) against a ULM offense ranked #133
- ▸LT defense (#12 stuff rate forced) against a ULM offense ranked #129
- ▸LT defense (#9 completion % allowed) against a ULM offense ranked #119
- ▸ULM defense (#30 interceptions forced) against a LT offense ranked #135
- ▸ULM rush explosiveness (#14) against a LT defense ranked #118 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.
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs offense vs UL Monroe Warhawks defense
ranks of 135| LT off | ULM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 39% | 48% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 63 | 62 | · |
| Possession / game | 30:03 | 30:23 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.19#99 | +0.31#100 | · |
| Pass success rate | 37%#113 | 42%#74 | ULM |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.59#45 | 1.68#114 | LT |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.8#87 | 7.6#99 | · |
| Completion % | 63%#62 | 63%#85 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 7.0%#135 | 3.4%#30 | ULM |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.14#56 | +0.08#54 | · |
| Rush success rate | 42%#90 | 40%#44 | ULM |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.04#37 | 1.03#102 | LT |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.95#65 | 2.83#56 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 18%#49 | 18%#87 | LT |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#53 | 74%#91 | LT |
| Yards / rush | 4.8#39 | 4.3#74 | LT |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.10#77 | +0.11#74 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.23#97 | +0.36#102 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#55 | 43%#108 | LT |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.32#108 | 4.21#118 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.7%#58 | 14.4%#101 | LT |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.31#74 | 0.75#128 | LT |
UL Monroe Warhawks offense vs Louisiana Tech Bulldogs defense
ranks of 135| ULM off | LT def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 43% | 54% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 63% | 65% | · |
| Plays / game | 52 | 66 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:38 | 29:57 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.21#89 | +0.14#22 | LT |
| Pass success rate | 38%#108 | 37%#24 | LT |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.80#7 | 1.58#84 | ULM |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.3#117 | 6.4#30 | LT |
| Completion % | 57%#119 | 55%#9 | LT |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.7%#29 | 2.1%#92 | ULM |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.05#105 | +0.02#26 | LT |
| Rush success rate | 36%#126 | 39%#37 | LT |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.11#14 | 1.08#118 | ULM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.70#111 | 2.69#29 | LT |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 25%#129 | 23%#12 | LT |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 78%#28 | 68%#46 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.6#56 | 4.2#68 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.04#107 | −0.04#13 | LT |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.16#117 | +0.26#55 | LT |
| Third-down conversion | 33%#123 | 39%#64 | LT |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.19#118 | 3.07#23 | LT |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 20.5%#133 | 19.5%#10 | LT |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.58#106 | 1.92#9 | LT |
Season
| LT | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 0-1 |
| 80.0 | Points for / game | 13.0 |
| 6.0 | Points against / game | 62.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| W | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| LT | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1525 | Elo | 1185 |
| #70 of 240 | Rank | #236 of 240 |
| +4.7 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | −9.4 |
| +4.8 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | −5.9 |
| 1364 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1541 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| LT | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| −9.1 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −28.9 |
| 0.139 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.086 |
| 0.067 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.186 |
| 40% / 38% | Success rate (off / def) | 36% / 41% |
| 1.25 / 1.34 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.41 / 1.36 |
| 543 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 505 |
| 64% | Returning production | 39% |
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
- LT +18.9 pts
- Home field
- ULM +— 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.