Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected New Hampshire 25.4, Stonehill 16.3 at Wildcat Stadium (NH) in Week 2. That is a solid edge: New Hampshire wins about 72% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 9.1 points and 41.7 combined points. Tags: leans low scoring.
Stonehill is 1-1, scoring 13.5 and allowing 13.5 points per game (+0 per game). New Hampshire is 0-2, scoring 8.5 and allowing 47 points per game (-38.5 per game).
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 Stonehill by 13 and New Hampshire by 32 about 80% of the time.
New Hampshire gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Even on a neutral field the ratings would still favour New Hampshire by about 7.
Result: Stonehill 35, New Hampshire 42. The model had the right winner; the margin was off by 2.1 points and the total by 35.3.
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 (Stonehill / New Hampshire) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | New Hampshire -13.5 | 43.5 | +343 / -479 |
| DraftKings | New Hampshire -13.5 | 43.5 | +343 / -479 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | New Hampshire win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | New Hampshire -9 | 41.7 | 72% |
| Market consensus | New Hampshire -13.5 | 43.5 | 79% |
| Blended projection | New Hampshire -13 | 44.7 | 81% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- New Hampshire win probability
- model 72% · market (no-vig) 79% · difference -6 pts
- Margin
- model New Hampshire -9.1 · market New Hampshire -13.5 · difference -4.4 pts (New Hampshire view)
- Total
- model 41.7 · market 43.5 · difference -1.8
Model margin is 4.4 pts more toward Stonehill 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 | Stonehill 16.3, New Hampshire 25.4 | New Hampshire 72%right winner | 2.1 | 35.3 |
| New formula | Stonehill 18.0, New Hampshire 26.5 | New Hampshire 70%right winner | 1.4 | 32.5 |
Final: Stonehill 35, New Hampshire 42. 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.
Stonehill vs New Hampshire: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | Stonehill | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 15.1 | 24.8 |
| Points allowed per game | 23.1 | 22.8 |
| Yards per play | 4.57 | 5.48 |
| Yards per play allowed | 5.94 | 5.68 |
| Rushing yards per game | 117.6 | 157.8 |
| Net passing yards per game | 148.7 | 204.5 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 193.3 | 188.8 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 182.3 | 165.0 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.58 | 0.54 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.08 | 1.00 |
| Sacks per game | 1.25 | 2.15 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 2.33 | 1.85 |
| Stat | Stonehill | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | -0.11 | -0.01 |
| EPA per play allowed | -0.01 | +0.06 |
| Success rate | 35.4% | 40.1% |
| Success rate allowed | 42.3% | 43.8% |
| Explosive play rate | 9.3% | 12.2% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 12.3% | 13.7% |
| Havoc rate | 11.0% | 13.2% |
| Havoc allowed | 15.4% | 12.7% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.66 | 3.01 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 2.92 | 3.61 |
| Average starting field position | opp 0 | opp 5 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 0 | opp 6 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 58.3 | 66.1 |
| Stat | Stonehill | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | -0.17 | -0.05 |
| Passing EPA per play | -0.05 | +0.04 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.04 | +0.13 |
| Passing EPA allowed | -0.09 | -0.04 |
| Rushing success rate | 36.3% | 40.4% |
| Passing success rate | 34.6% | 41.1% |
| Run stuff rate | 25.1% | 19.4% |
| Passing-down success rate | 26.8% | 32.2% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 29.1% | 32.4% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 34.4% | 38.8% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 43.9% | 43.0% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 57.6% | 51.1% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 48.1% | 52.2% |
# = 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: Stonehill schedule · New Hampshire schedule · all Week 2 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.