Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected UT Rio Grande Valley 27.8, Nicholls 25 at John L. Guidry Stadium in Week 2. That is a genuine toss-up: UT Rio Grande Valley wins about 57% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 2.8 points and 52.8 combined points. Tags: coin flip.
UT Rio Grande Valley is 1-1, scoring 30 and allowing 22.5 points per game (+7.5 per game). Nicholls is 1-1, scoring 23.5 and allowing 40.5 points per game (-17 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 UT Rio Grande Valley by 25 and Nicholls by 20 about 80% of the time.
Nicholls gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. UT Rio Grande Valley is still favoured on the road, so the ratings gap is bigger than the value of playing at home. The game is on ESPN+.
Result: UT Rio Grande Valley 28, Nicholls 31. Nicholls won, so this goes down as a miss for the model (margin off by 5.8 points).
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 / Nicholls) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 50.5 | -235 / +184 |
| DraftKings | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 50.5 | -235 / +184 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | Nicholls win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | UT Rio Grande Valley -3 | 52.8 | 43% |
| Market consensus | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 50.5 | 33% |
| Blended projection | UT Rio Grande Valley -5 | 51.4 | 36% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- Nicholls win probability
- model 43% · market (no-vig) 33% · difference +9 pts
- Margin
- model UT Rio Grande Valley -2.8 · market UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 · difference +2.7 pts (Nicholls view)
- Total
- model 52.8 · market 50.5 · difference +2.3
Model margin is 2.7 pts more toward Nicholls 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 27.8, Nicholls 25.0 | UT Rio Grande Valley 57%wrong winner | 5.8 | 6.2 |
| New formula | UT Rio Grande Valley 34.9, Nicholls 19.9 | UT Rio Grande Valley 83%wrong winner | 18.0 | 4.2 |
Final: UT Rio Grande Valley 28, Nicholls 31. 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 Nicholls: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Nicholls |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 39.6 | 18.3 |
| Points allowed per game | 18.8 | 24.9 |
| Yards per play | 7.50 | 5.38 |
| Yards per play allowed | 4.99 | 5.78 |
| Rushing yards per game | 207.9 | 164.8 |
| Net passing yards per game | 242.0 | 179.3 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 134.4 | 218.6 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 221.6 | 178.3 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.64 | 1.67 |
| Sacks per game | 2.45 | 1.08 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 1.45 | 1.42 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Nicholls |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.10 | -0.04 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.05 | +0.06 |
| Success rate | 44.5% | 38.2% |
| Success rate allowed | 42.3% | 43.7% |
| Explosive play rate | 14.9% | 10.6% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 10.7% | 13.0% |
| Havoc rate | 12.6% | 8.7% |
| Havoc allowed | 11.3% | 11.1% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.66 | 3.08 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 3.16 | 3.61 |
| Average starting field position | opp 0 | opp 11 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 0 | opp 10 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 60.0 | 64.0 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Nicholls |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.05 | -0.04 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.16 | -0.05 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.06 | +0.15 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.03 | -0.06 |
| Rushing success rate | 46.9% | 37.8% |
| Passing success rate | 45.5% | 35.3% |
| Run stuff rate | 17.2% | 19.9% |
| Passing-down success rate | 33.3% | 26.8% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 31.7% | 30.3% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 48.0% | 36.8% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 45.5% | 48.6% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 0.0% | 45.9% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 0.0% | 58.1% |
# = 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 · Nicholls 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.