Probetrics — Sports Analytics
College Football slate
UTEP Miners
0-1 · #234 Elo
at
Fri, Nov 20, 8:00 PM ET
Falcon Stadium
Air Force Falcons
1-0 · #85 Elo
Spread Total Moneyline

The read

On rating alone Air Force Falcons are 13.5 points better (#85 vs #234 of 240), and AFA add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: AFA passing ranks #2, UTEP defends it at #66; the other way UTEP #129 into AFA's #134.

Who has the edge

Rating
Clear edge
AFA
AFA rated 13.5 points better on Elo (#85 vs #234).
Home & rest
Even
AFA gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
AFA
AFA passing ranks #2, UTEP defends it at #66; the other way UTEP #129 into AFA's #134.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
UTEP
UTEP rushing ranks #104, AFA defends it at #135; the other way AFA #18 into UTEP's #23.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
UTEP third-down conversion ranks #132, AFA defends it at #134; the other way AFA #7 into UTEP's #4.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
AFA
AFA +34.0 per game over the last five, UTEP −51.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
No line yet.
context · not in the margin

The margin, factor by factor

UTEP MinersAir Force Falcons
1234 Elo · #234
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
AFA +13.5 pts
1476 Elo · #85
road
Home field
not priced
home
Rest
even
−9.8 pts vs AFA 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.
AFA +17.3 pts
+7.5 pts vs UTEP D
L · −51.0
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.
AFA +42.5 pts
W · +34.0
−17.5
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
AFA +14.3 pts
−3.2
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

  • UTEP rush explosiveness (#5) against a AFA defense ranked #132 at stopping it
  • UTEP defense (#3 interceptions forced) against a AFA offense ranked #124
  • UTEP interception rate (#13) against a AFA defense ranked #89 at stopping it
  • AFA turnovers / game (#26) against a UTEP defense ranked #101 at stopping it
  • AFA points / scoring opportunity (#12) against a UTEP defense ranked #85 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.

UTEP Miners offense vs Air Force Falcons defense

ranks of 135
UTEP offAFA defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced54%50%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).66%72%·
Plays / game6357·
Possession / game25:3826:08·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.03#129+0.51#134·
Pass success rate31%#13454%#135·
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.71#171.46#32·
Yards / pass attempt6.3#1189.5#134·
Completion %55%#13070%#133·
Interception rate / Interceptions forced1.2%#132.1%#89UTEP
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.05#104+0.31#135UTEP
Rush success rate36%#12846%#109·
Rush explosiveness1.17#51.21#132UTEP
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.14#1323.30#126·
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.23%#12313%#132·
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.60%#12776%#101·
Yards / rush3.7#1095.3#129·
Situational
Standard-down PPA−0.08#132+0.29#133·
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.21#103+0.73#135UTEP
Third-down conversion30%#13250%#134·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.42#964.28#121·
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.18.6%#12210.7%#132·
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game2.00#1320.83#115·

Air Force Falcons offense vs UTEP Miners defense

ranks of 135
AFA offUTEP defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced21%45%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).76%68%·
Plays / game6771·
Possession / game33:5234:22·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.55#2+0.24#66AFA
Pass success rate47%#1942%#75AFA
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.2.13#21.45#21·
Yards / pass attempt10.6#17.0#59AFA
Completion %59%#9762%#68UTEP
Interception rate / Interceptions forced4.3%#1245.3%#3UTEP
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.23#18+0.02#23·
Rush success rate48%#2337%#13·
Rush explosiveness0.96#690.98#79·
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.3.27#172.63#22·
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.12%#222%#21·
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.79%#2064%#21·
Yards / rush4.8#334.2#65AFA
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.25#8+0.11#73AFA
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.39#39+0.12#10UTEP
Third-down conversion51%#728%#4·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.4.60#123.85#85AFA
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.9.0%#215.7%#68AFA
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game1.00#261.00#101AFA

Season

UTEPAFA
0-1Record1-0
0.0Points for / game34.0
51.0Points against / game0.0
0-0 / 0-1Home / road1-0 / 0-0
0-1Against the spread1-0
0-1Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean.0-1
LLast 5W

Power ratings

UTEPAFA
1234Elo1476
#234 of 240Rank#85 of 240
−4.9Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted.−1.1
−8.6Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good.+4.8
1768Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season.1324

Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.

Advanced

UTEPAFA
−19.3SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average.−3.2
0.016Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD).0.286
0.110Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better.0.409
33% / 39%Success rate (off / def)47% / 50%
1.46 / 1.21Explosiveness (off / def)1.22 / 1.37
586Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster.272
-1%Returning production57%

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
AFA +13.5 pts
Home field
AFA +— 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.