← College Football slate
UL Monroe Warhawks
0-1 · #236 Elo
at
Sat, Nov 21, 12:00 AM ET
Kidd Brewer Stadium
Appalachian State Mountaineers
1-0 · #154 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone Appalachian State Mountaineers are 12.6 points better (#154 vs #236 of 240), and APP add 0.0 for home field.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
APP
APP rated 12.6 points better on Elo (#154 vs #236).
Home & rest
Even
—
APP gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
not priced
—
Ranks unavailable.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
not priced
—
Ranks unavailable.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
not priced
—
Ranks unavailable.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
APP
APP +52.0 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 WarhawksAppalachian State Mountaineers
1185 Elo · #236
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
APP +12.6 pts
1412 Elo · #154
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−11.5 pts vs APP 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.
APP +17.9 pts
+6.4 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.
APP +50.5 pts
W · +52.0
−21.6
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
APP +10.2 pts
−11.4
—
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)Season
| ULM | APP | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-1 | Record | 1-0 |
| 13.0 | Points for / game | 55.0 |
| 62.0 | Points against / game | 3.0 |
| 0-0 / 0-1 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| L | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| ULM | APP | |
|---|---|---|
| 1185 | Elo | 1412 |
| #236 of 240 | Rank | #154 of 240 |
| −9.4 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +0.5 |
| −5.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +2.1 |
| 1541 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1407 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| ULM | APP | |
|---|---|---|
| −28.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −12.7 |
| 0.086 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | — |
| 0.186 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | — |
| 36% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | —% / —% |
| 1.41 / 1.36 | Explosiveness (off / def) | — / — |
| 505 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 622 |
| 39% | Returning production | 38% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2023 | APP 41 at ULM 40 | APP · ULM covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- APP +12.6 pts
- Home field
- APP +— 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.