Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected UTSA 45.9, UT Rio Grande Valley 16.8 at Alamodome in Week 1. That is a heavy edge: UTSA wins about 97% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 29.1 points and 62.7 combined points. Tags: favorite holds, blowout brewing, leans high scoring.
UT Rio Grande Valley is 1-0, scoring 44 and allowing 0 points per game (+44 per game). UTSA has not played a game yet this season, so its number leans on last year's results.
UT Rio Grande Valley plays in the FCS, so this is a cross-division game. Our ratings put FCS teams on the FBS scale through a measured gap from every FBS-vs-FCS result, which is why UTSA's projected edge is large even if the records look similar. Cross-division projections are a little less precise than FBS-vs-FBS ones.
College football is noisy: even a well-rated projection misses the final margin by about 14 points on average. Based on how real results have scattered around our numbers, the final margin should land somewhere between UTSA by 7 and UTSA by 52 about 80% of the time.
UTSA gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Even on a neutral field the ratings would still favour UTSA by about 27. The game is on ESPN+.
Result: UT Rio Grande Valley 16, UTSA 45. The model had the right winner; the margin was off by 0.1 points and the total by 1.7.
Market lines
Market lines · Source: The Odds API, ESPN, Action Network · Updated Oct 29, 9:25 AM UTC. Shown for information; not an input to our projections.
| Provider | Spread (open → now) | Total (open → now) | Moneyline (UT Rio Grande Valley / UTSA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | UTSA -28.5 | 59.5 | +1800 / -8250 |
| DraftKings | UTSA -28.5 | 59.5 | +2000 / -6500 |
| Bovada | UTSA -28.5 | 59.5 | +1600 / -10000 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | UTSA win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | UTSA -29 | 62.7 | 97% |
| Market consensus | UTSA -28.5 | 59.5 | 95% |
| Blended projection | UTSA -29 | 59.7 | 97% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- UTSA win probability
- model 97% · market (no-vig) 95% · difference +2 pts
- Margin
- model UTSA -29.1 · market UTSA -28.5 · difference +0.6 pts (UTSA view)
- Total
- model 62.7 · market 59.5 · difference +3.2
Model margin is 0.6 pts more toward UTSA than the market.
21+ only where legal. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Original projection vs new formula
| Projection | Score | Win prob | Margin miss | Total miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original projection | UT Rio Grande Valley 16.8, UTSA 45.9 | UTSA 97%right winner | 0.1 | 1.7 |
| New formula | UT Rio Grande Valley 22.1, UTSA 39.9 | UTSA 85%right winner | 11.2 | 1.0 |
Final: UT Rio Grande Valley 16, UTSA 45. Original = the number we posted before kickoff. New formula (2026-10-21 matchup terms) = the current model re-run with only the games played before this one.
UT Rio Grande Valley vs UTSA: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | UTSA |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 39.6 | 35.5#14 |
| Points allowed per game | 18.8 | 28.8#92 |
| Yards per play | 7.50 | 6.51#25 |
| Yards per play allowed | 4.99 | 5.90#80 |
| Rushing yards per game | 207.9 | 183.7#49 |
| Net passing yards per game | 242.0 | 249.2#46 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 134.4 | 154.5#56 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 221.6 | 224.7#82 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.73 | 0.62#8 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.64 | 1.23#49 |
| Sacks per game | 2.45 | 1.77#92 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 1.45 | 1.46#36 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | UTSA |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.10 | +0.11#27 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.05 | -0.01#57 |
| Success rate | 44.5% | 46.2%#26 |
| Success rate allowed | 42.3% | 38.8%#34 |
| Explosive play rate | 14.9% | 13.5%#40 |
| Explosive plays allowed | 10.7% | 12.5%#72 |
| Havoc rate | 12.6% | 13.8%#36 |
| Havoc allowed | 11.3% | 10.9%#38 |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.66 | 4.56#16 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 3.16 | 4.28#110 |
| Average starting field position | opp 0 | own 32#20 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 0 | own 27#18 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 60.0 | 66.5#63 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | UTSA |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.05 | +0.10#26 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.16 | +0.12#34 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.06 | -0.06#33 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.03 | +0.04#81 |
| Rushing success rate | 46.9% | 46.0%#42 |
| Passing success rate | 45.5% | 46.4%#21 |
| Run stuff rate | 17.2% | 20.7%#107 |
| Passing-down success rate | 33.3% | 36.7%#16 |
| Passing-down success allowed | 31.7% | 27.2%#28 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 48.0% | 41.3%#65 |
| Third-down rate allowed | 45.5% | 35.7%#26 |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 0.0% | 64.2%#51 |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 0.0% | 63.1%#89 |
# = rank among 136 FBS teams. Efficiency numbers exclude garbage time. Per-play numbers of teams with a weak schedule are pulled toward their opponent-adjusted values (fully at one standard deviation below an average schedule). Source: play-by-play (cfbfastR / sportsdataverse), aggregated by us.
More: UT Rio Grande Valley schedule · UTSA schedule · all Week 1 projections
Share this prediction
Projections are statistical estimates for entertainment and analysis only. They are not betting advice and nothing here guarantees any result.
Free weekly projections email
One email a week in season: the closest projected games, the biggest mismatches and how the model graded out last week. Email address only — no spam, unsubscribe any time.