Probetrics — Sports Analytics
College Football slate
at
Sat, Nov 28, 2:00 PM ET
Johnny "Red" Floyd Stadium
Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
3-9 last yr · #230 Elo
Spread Total Moneyline

The read

On rating alone Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders are 0.1 points better (#230 vs #231 of 240), and MTSU add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: NMSU third-down conversion ranks #45, MTSU defends it at #65; the other way MTSU #93 into NMSU's #95.

Who has the edge

Rating
Even
MTSU rated 0.1 points better on Elo (#230 vs #231).
Home & rest
Even
MTSU gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
NMSU
NMSU passing ranks #111, MTSU defends it at #125; the other way MTSU #87 into NMSU's #76.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
MTSU
MTSU rushing ranks #87, NMSU defends it at #15; the other way NMSU #134 into MTSU's #36.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Slight edge
NMSU
NMSU third-down conversion ranks #45, MTSU defends it at #65; the other way MTSU #93 into NMSU's #95.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
NMSU
MTSU −4.8 per game over the last five, NMSU +10.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
No line yet.
context · not in the margin

The margin, factor by factor

New Mexico State AggiesMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders
1261 Elo · #231
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
MTSU +0.1 pts
1262 Elo · #230
road
Home field
not priced
home
Rest
even
−1.1 pts vs MTSU 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.
MTSU +0.5 pts
−0.7 pts vs NMSU D
W L · +10.0
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.
NMSU +7.4 pts
W W L L L · −4.8
−15.5
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
NMSU +0.5 pts
−16.0
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

  • MTSU defense (#16 stuff rate forced) against a NMSU offense ranked #133
  • MTSU defense (#19 line yards / rush allowed) against a NMSU offense ranked #133
  • MTSU defense (#36 rushing ppa / play allowed) against a NMSU offense ranked #134
  • NMSU defense (#34 points / scoring opportunity allowed) against a MTSU offense ranked #116
  • MTSU defense (#55 yards / rush allowed) against a NMSU offense ranked #135

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.

New Mexico State Aggies offense vs Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders defense

ranks of 135
NMSU offMTSU defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced59%48%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).64%71%·
Plays / game6865·
Possession / game30:0631:14·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.17#111+0.41#125·
Pass success rate40%#9048%#130NMSU
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.44#1091.61#99·
Yards / pass attempt6.4#1148.2#122·
Completion %58%#10464%#106·
Interception rate / Interceptions forced3.2%#871.9%#100·
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play−0.09#134+0.04#36MTSU
Rush success rate33%#13441%#59MTSU
Rush explosiveness0.91#880.83#9MTSU
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.13#1332.62#19MTSU
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.26%#13323%#16MTSU
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.69%#8966%#29MTSU
Yards / rush2.6#1354.1#55MTSU
Situational
Standard-down PPA−0.04#128+0.17#110·
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.20#107+0.33#90·
Third-down conversion42%#4539%#65·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.21#1134.03#105·
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.20.3%#13215.7%#67MTSU
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game2.00#1311.17#82MTSU

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders offense vs New Mexico State Aggies defense

ranks of 135
MTSU offNMSU defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced62%48%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).68%69%·
Plays / game6872·
Possession / game28:4629:52·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.21#87+0.26#76·
Pass success rate42%#6244%#108MTSU
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.43#1151.49#43NMSU
Yards / pass attempt6.4#1137.0#58NMSU
Completion %60%#9164%#95·
Interception rate / Interceptions forced2.0%#493.9%#10NMSU
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.08#87+0.00#15NMSU
Rush success rate45%#5641%#52·
Rush explosiveness0.88#1070.92#44NMSU
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.92#702.99#90·
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.22%#11620%#58NMSU
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.65%#10671%#69NMSU
Yards / rush4.1#924.4#84·
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.09#83+0.05#41NMSU
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.30#68+0.23#45·
Third-down conversion37%#9341%#95·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.20#1163.29#34NMSU
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.18.0%#11415.6%#70NMSU
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game1.00#311.92#11·

Season

NMSUMTSU
1-1Record3-9
34.0Points for / game22.4
24.0Points against / game30.9
1-0 / 0-1Home / road1-5 / 2-4
2-0Against the spread6-6
1-1Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean.6-6
W LLast 5W W L L L

Season numbers are from 2025 until this season has games.

Power ratings

NMSUMTSU
1261Elo1262
#231 of 240Rank#230 of 240
−4.9Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted.−2.9
−2.2Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good.−3.8
1580Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season.

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

Advanced

NMSUMTSU
−18.5SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average.−26.5
0.049Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD).0.160
0.105Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better.0.215
37% / 42%Success rate (off / def)43% / 45%
1.26 / 1.21Explosiveness (off / def)1.22 / 1.27
460Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster.572
24%Returning production33%

Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Head to head

2025MTSU 31 at NMSU 24MTSU · MTSU covered
2024NMSU 36 at MTSU 21NMSU · NMSU covered
2023MTSU 7 at NMSU 13NMSU · NMSU covered

How the margin was built

Rating gap
MTSU +0.1 pts
Home field
MTSU +— 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.