Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected UT Rio Grande Valley 30, McNeese 25.2 at Robert and Janet Vackar Stadium in Week 3. That is a lean: UT Rio Grande Valley wins about 62% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 4.8 points and 55.1 combined points. Tags: upset alert.
McNeese is 1-2, scoring 34.3 and allowing 21.7 points per game (+12.6 per game). UT Rio Grande Valley is 1-2, scoring 29.3 and allowing 25.3 points per game (+4 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 McNeese by 18 and UT Rio Grande Valley by 27 about 80% of the time.
UT Rio Grande Valley gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Even on a neutral field the ratings would still favour UT Rio Grande Valley by about 2.7. The game is on ESPN+.
Result: McNeese 10, UT Rio Grande Valley 27. The model had the right winner; the margin was off by 12.2 points and the total by 18.1.
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 (McNeese / UT Rio Grande Valley) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 52.5 | +162 / -204 |
| DraftKings | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 52.5 | +162 / -204 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | UT Rio Grande Valley win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | UT Rio Grande Valley -5 | 55.1 | 62% |
| Market consensus | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 52.5 | 64% |
| Blended projection | UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 | 53.3 | 64% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- UT Rio Grande Valley win probability
- model 62% · market (no-vig) 64% · difference -1 pts
- Margin
- model UT Rio Grande Valley -4.8 · market UT Rio Grande Valley -5.5 · difference -0.7 pts (UT Rio Grande Valley view)
- Total
- model 55.1 · market 52.5 · difference +2.6
Model margin is 0.7 pts more toward McNeese 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 | McNeese 25.2, UT Rio Grande Valley 30.0 | UT Rio Grande Valley 62%right winner | 12.2 | 18.1 |
| New formula | McNeese 22.1, UT Rio Grande Valley 32.3 | UT Rio Grande Valley 75%right winner | 6.7 | 17.4 |
Final: McNeese 10, UT Rio Grande Valley 27. 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.
McNeese vs UT Rio Grande Valley: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | McNeese | UT Rio Grande Valley |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 23.5 | 39.6 |
| Points allowed per game | 25.5 | 18.8 |
| Yards per play | 6.10 | 7.50 |
| Yards per play allowed | 6.01 | 4.99 |
| Rushing yards per game | 213.5 | 207.9 |
| Net passing yards per game | 196.0 | 242.0 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 205.9 | 134.4 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 170.1 | 221.6 |
| Turnovers per game | 1.58 | 0.73 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.08 | 1.64 |
| Sacks per game | 2.08 | 2.45 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 2.33 | 1.45 |
| Stat | McNeese | UT Rio Grande Valley |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | 0.00 | +0.10 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.08 | +0.05 |
| Success rate | 42.1% | 44.5% |
| Success rate allowed | 43.1% | 42.3% |
| Explosive play rate | 13.0% | 14.9% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 13.8% | 10.7% |
| Havoc rate | 14.0% | 12.6% |
| Havoc allowed | 11.8% | 11.3% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 2.97 | 3.66 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 3.58 | 3.16 |
| Average starting field position | opp 12 | opp 0 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 11 | opp 0 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 67.2 | 60.0 |
| Stat | McNeese | UT Rio Grande Valley |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.04 | +0.05 |
| Passing EPA per play | -0.04 | +0.16 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.14 | +0.06 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.01 | +0.03 |
| Rushing success rate | 45.1% | 46.9% |
| Passing success rate | 39.9% | 45.5% |
| Run stuff rate | 14.1% | 17.2% |
| Passing-down success rate | 29.2% | 33.3% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 32.6% | 31.7% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 40.9% | 48.0% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 42.4% | 45.5% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 56.2% | 0.0% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 51.8% | 0.0% |
# = 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: McNeese schedule · UT Rio Grande Valley schedule · all Week 3 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.