← College Football slate
UL Monroe Warhawks
0-1 · #236 Elo
at
Sat, Nov 7, 3:00 PM ET
Centennial Bank Stadium
Arkansas State Red Wolves
0-1 · #186 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone Arkansas State Red Wolves are 10.7 points better (#186 vs #236 of 240), and ARST add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: ARST third-down conversion ranks #74, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into ARST's #97.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
ARST
ARST rated 10.7 points better on Elo (#186 vs #236).
Home & rest
Even
—
ARST gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Even
—
ARST passing ranks #84, ULM defends it at #100; the other way ULM #89 into ARST's #99.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
ULM
ULM rushing ranks #105, ARST defends it at #81; the other way ARST #124 into ULM's #54.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Slight edge
ARST
ARST third-down conversion ranks #74, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into ARST's #97.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
ARST
ARST −18.0 per game over the last five, ULM −49.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
UL Monroe WarhawksArkansas State Red Wolves
1185 Elo · #236
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
ARST +10.7 pts
1378 Elo · #186
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−8.6 pts vs ARST 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.
ARST +13.8 pts
+5.1 pts vs ULM D
L · −49.0
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.
ARST +15.5 pts
L · −18.0
−21.6
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
ARST +12.8 pts
−8.8
—
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
- ▸ULM pass explosiveness (#7) against a ARST defense ranked #88 at stopping it
- ▸ULM rush explosiveness (#14) against a ARST defense ranked #94 at stopping it
- ▸ULM defense (#54 rushing ppa / play allowed) against a ARST offense ranked #124
- ▸ARST defense (#44 line yards / rush allowed) against a ULM offense ranked #111
- ▸ARST defense (#64 stuff rate forced) against a ULM offense ranked #129
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.
UL Monroe Warhawks offense vs Arkansas State Red Wolves defense
ranks of 135| ULM off | ARST def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 43% | 46% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 63% | 70% | · |
| Plays / game | 52 | 68 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:38 | 30:29 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.21#89 | +0.31#99 | · |
| Pass success rate | 38%#108 | 44%#98 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.80#7 | 1.58#88 | ULM |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.3#117 | 8.1#118 | · |
| Completion % | 57%#119 | 68%#131 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.7%#29 | 3.1%#37 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.05#105 | +0.12#81 | · |
| Rush success rate | 36%#126 | 44%#83 | ARST |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.11#14 | 1.01#94 | ULM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.70#111 | 2.75#44 | ARST |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 25%#129 | 19%#64 | ARST |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 78%#28 | 69%#49 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.6#56 | 4.5#89 | ULM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.04#107 | +0.09#69 | ARST |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.16#117 | +0.42#118 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 33%#123 | 42%#97 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.19#118 | 3.90#89 | ARST |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 20.5%#133 | 15.5%#71 | ARST |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.58#106 | 1.23#74 | ARST |
Arkansas State Red Wolves offense vs UL Monroe Warhawks defense
ranks of 135| ARST off | ULM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 56% | 48% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 70% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 73 | 62 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:31 | 30:23 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.21#84 | +0.31#100 | · |
| Pass success rate | 44%#47 | 42%#74 | ARST |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.40#121 | 1.68#114 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.6#97 | 7.6#99 | · |
| Completion % | 66%#30 | 63%#85 | ARST |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.4%#20 | 3.4%#30 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | −0.01#124 | +0.08#54 | ULM |
| Rush success rate | 40%#100 | 40%#44 | ULM |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.80#126 | 1.03#102 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.65#118 | 2.83#56 | ULM |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 21%#110 | 18%#87 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 70%#80 | 74%#91 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.6#117 | 4.3#74 | ULM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.02#110 | +0.11#74 | ULM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.27#82 | +0.36#102 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 39%#74 | 43%#108 | ARST |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.31#109 | 4.21#118 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 17.8%#110 | 14.4%#101 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.77#122 | 0.75#128 | · |
Season
| ULM | ARST | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-1 | Record | 0-1 |
| 13.0 | Points for / game | 24.0 |
| 62.0 | Points against / game | 42.0 |
| 0-0 / 0-1 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| L | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| ULM | ARST | |
|---|---|---|
| 1185 | Elo | 1378 |
| #236 of 240 | Rank | #186 of 240 |
| −9.4 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | −0.7 |
| −5.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | −0.8 |
| 1541 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1631 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| ULM | ARST | |
|---|---|---|
| −28.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −11.6 |
| 0.086 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.095 |
| 0.186 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.191 |
| 36% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | 42% / 43% |
| 1.41 / 1.36 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.16 / 1.29 |
| 505 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 606 |
| 39% | Returning production | 30% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2025 | ARST 16 at ULM 28 | ULM · ULM covered |
| 2024 | ULM 21 at ARST 28 | ARST · ARST covered |
| 2023 | ARST 34 at ULM 24 | ARST · ARST covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- ARST +10.7 pts
- Home field
- ARST +— 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.