Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected New Hampshire 28.1, UAlbany 21.5 at Bob Ford Field at Tom & Mary Casey Stadium in Week 1. That is a lean: New Hampshire wins about 67% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 6.6 points and 49.5 combined points. Tags: upset alert.
New Hampshire has not played a game yet this season, so its number leans on last year's results. UAlbany has not played a game yet this season, so its number leans on last year's results.
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 New Hampshire by 29 and UAlbany by 16 about 80% of the time.
UAlbany gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. New Hampshire is still favoured on the road, so the ratings gap is bigger than the value of playing at home.
Result: New Hampshire 14, UAlbany 28. UAlbany won, so this goes down as a miss for the model (margin off by 20.6 points).
Market lines
Market lines · Source: The Odds API, ESPN, Action Network · Updated Oct 29, 11:25 AM UTC. Shown for information; not an input to our projections.
| Provider | Spread (open → now) | Total (open → now) | Moneyline (New Hampshire / UAlbany) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | New Hampshire -11.5 → New Hampshire -10 | 45.5 → 46.5 | -357 / +268 |
| DraftKings | New Hampshire -11.5 → New Hampshire -10 | 45.5 → 46.5 | -357 / +268 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | UAlbany win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | New Hampshire -6.5 | 49.5 | 33% |
| Market consensus | New Hampshire -10 | 46.5 | 26% |
| Blended projection | New Hampshire -9.5 | 47.7 | 26% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- UAlbany win probability
- model 33% · market (no-vig) 26% · difference +8 pts
- Margin
- model New Hampshire -6.6 · market New Hampshire -10 · difference +3.4 pts (UAlbany view)
- Total
- model 49.5 · market 46.5 · difference +3.0
Model margin is 3.4 pts more toward UAlbany 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 | New Hampshire 28.1, UAlbany 21.5 | New Hampshire 67%wrong winner | 20.6 | 7.5 |
| New formula | New Hampshire 25.3, UAlbany 22.9 | New Hampshire 55%wrong winner | 16.4 | 6.2 |
Final: New Hampshire 14, UAlbany 28. 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.
New Hampshire vs UAlbany: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | New Hampshire | UAlbany |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 24.8 | 16.8 |
| Points allowed per game | 22.8 | 32.3 |
| Yards per play | 5.48 | 4.73 |
| Yards per play allowed | 5.68 | 5.52 |
| Rushing yards per game | 157.8 | 114.7 |
| Net passing yards per game | 204.5 | 200.7 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 188.8 | 183.6 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 165.0 | 216.5 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.54 | 1.00 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.00 | 0.64 |
| Sacks per game | 2.15 | 1.55 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 1.85 | 2.91 |
| Stat | New Hampshire | UAlbany |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | -0.01 | -0.11 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.06 | +0.03 |
| Success rate | 40.1% | 35.7% |
| Success rate allowed | 43.8% | 44.4% |
| Explosive play rate | 12.2% | 11.2% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 13.7% | 11.8% |
| Havoc rate | 13.2% | 12.6% |
| Havoc allowed | 12.7% | 14.9% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.01 | 2.90 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 3.61 | 4.05 |
| Average starting field position | opp 5 | opp 6 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 6 | opp 6 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 66.1 | 66.6 |
| Stat | New Hampshire | UAlbany |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | -0.05 | -0.07 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.04 | -0.13 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.13 | -0.01 |
| Passing EPA allowed | -0.04 | +0.08 |
| Rushing success rate | 40.4% | 37.8% |
| Passing success rate | 41.1% | 32.9% |
| Run stuff rate | 19.4% | 24.5% |
| Passing-down success rate | 32.2% | 28.3% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 32.4% | 29.5% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 38.8% | 30.7% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 43.0% | 39.2% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 51.1% | 53.1% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 52.2% | 61.8% |
# = 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: New Hampshire schedule · UAlbany 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.