← College Football slate
Tennessee Volunteers
1-0 · #19 Elo
at
Sat, Nov 28, 12:00 AM ET
FirstBank Stadium
Vanderbilt Commodores
1-0 · #11 Elo
Spread TENN -3Total 57.5Moneyline TENN -162 · VAN +136
The read
On rating alone Vanderbilt Commodores are 4.2 points better (#11 vs #19 of 240), and VAN add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: VAN rushing ranks #1, TENN defends it at #78; the other way TENN #9 into VAN's #32.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
VAN
VAN rated 4.2 points better on Elo (#11 vs #19).
Home & rest
Even
—
VAN gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
TENN
TENN passing ranks #19, VAN defends it at #114; the other way VAN #1 into TENN's #59.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
VAN
VAN rushing ranks #1, TENN defends it at #78; the other way TENN #9 into VAN's #32.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
TENN third-down conversion ranks #10, VAN defends it at #111; the other way VAN #6 into TENN's #89.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
TENN
VAN +19.0 per game over the last five, TENN +47.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Slight edge
TENN
Consensus has TENN by 3.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Tennessee VolunteersVanderbilt Commodores
1731 Elo · #19
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
VAN +4.2 pts
1807 Elo · #11
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
+3.1 pts vs VAN 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.
VAN +2.0 pts
+5.1 pts vs TENN D
W · +47.0
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.
TENN +14.0 pts
W · +19.0
+15.0
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
VAN +5.3 pts
+20.3
TENN -3
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
TENN +3.0 pts
VAN +3
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
- ▸VAN rush success rate (#8) against a TENN defense ranked #122 at stopping it
- ▸VAN completion % (#7) against a TENN defense ranked #118 at stopping it
- ▸VAN points / scoring opportunity (#3) against a TENN defense ranked #109 at stopping it
- ▸TENN completion % (#19) against a VAN defense ranked #123 at stopping it
- ▸TENN third-down conversion (#10) against a VAN defense ranked #111 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.
Tennessee Volunteers offense vs Vanderbilt Commodores defense
ranks of 135| TENN off | VAN def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 48% | 54% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 74% | 66% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 56 | · |
| Possession / game | 27:22 | 28:42 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.41#19 | +0.35#114 | TENN |
| Pass success rate | 50%#9 | 43%#91 | TENN |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.57#56 | 1.56#75 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.7#13 | 7.1#66 | TENN |
| Completion % | 67%#19 | 67%#123 | TENN |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.3%#64 | 1.7%#105 | TENN |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.26#9 | +0.04#32 | · |
| Rush success rate | 52%#3 | 40%#47 | TENN |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.96#72 | 0.93#53 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.10#40 | 2.66#24 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 14%#11 | 22%#31 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 85%#2 | 72%#74 | TENN |
| Yards / rush | 4.7#44 | 3.7#30 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.28#3 | +0.11#78 | TENN |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.47#16 | +0.38#108 | TENN |
| Third-down conversion | 50%#10 | 43%#111 | TENN |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.69#9 | 3.90#90 | TENN |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 12.4%#19 | 17.1%#39 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.15#55 | 1.15#89 | TENN |
Vanderbilt Commodores offense vs Tennessee Volunteers defense
ranks of 135| VAN off | TENN def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 52% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 74% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 57 | 61 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:18 | 32:38 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.55#1 | +0.22#59 | VAN |
| Pass success rate | 54%#3 | 41%#67 | VAN |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.54#74 | 1.53#53 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 9.3#4 | 7.2#70 | VAN |
| Completion % | 70%#7 | 66%#118 | VAN |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.0%#48 | 2.3%#79 | VAN |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.35#1 | +0.12#78 | VAN |
| Rush success rate | 50%#8 | 48%#122 | VAN |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.21#2 | 0.85#14 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.37#9 | 2.89#71 | VAN |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#25 | 20%#47 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 76%#38 | 82%#125 | VAN |
| Yards / rush | 5.7#7 | 4.1#56 | VAN |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.32#2 | +0.12#84 | VAN |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.78#1 | +0.26#59 | VAN |
| Third-down conversion | 51%#6 | 41%#89 | VAN |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 5.00#3 | 4.09#109 | VAN |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 12.9%#28 | 18.4%#19 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.92#19 | 1.54#37 | · |
Season
| TENN | VAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 56.0 | Points for / game | 28.0 |
| 9.0 | Points against / game | 9.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 0-1 |
| 0-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| TENN | VAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 1731 | Elo | 1807 |
| #19 of 240 | Rank | #11 of 240 |
| +11.9 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +11.3 |
| +6.3 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +8.8 |
| 1452 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1477 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TENN | VAN | |
|---|---|---|
| +17.3 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +9.8 |
| 0.332 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.440 |
| 0.164 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.203 |
| 51% / 44% | Success rate (off / def) | 52% / 42% |
| 1.27 / 1.16 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.39 / 1.31 |
| 886 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 727 |
| 35% | Returning production | 35% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2025 | VAN 45 at TENN 24 | VAN · VAN covered |
| 2024 | TENN 36 at VAN 23 | TENN · TENN covered |
| 2023 | VAN 24 at TENN 48 | TENN · VAN covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- VAN +4.2 pts
- Home field
- VAN +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- TENN -3
- Total
- 57.5
- Moneyline
- TENN -162 · VAN +136
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.