Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected Incarnate Word 27.2, UT Rio Grande Valley 26.8 at Gayle and Tom Benson Stadium in Week 7. That is a genuine toss-up: Incarnate Word wins about 51% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 0.4 points and 53.9 combined points. Tags: coin flip.
UT Rio Grande Valley is 3-3, scoring 24.2 and allowing 18.2 points per game (+6 per game). Incarnate Word is 2-4, scoring 34.2 and allowing 34 points per game (+0.2 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 22 and Incarnate Word by 23 about 80% of the time.
Incarnate Word gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. That home edge is the difference: on a neutral field UT Rio Grande Valley would be favoured by 1.7. The game is on ESPN+.
Result: UT Rio Grande Valley 16, Incarnate Word 41. The model had the right winner; the margin was off by 24.6 points and the total by 3.1.
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 (UT Rio Grande Valley / Incarnate Word) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Incarnate Word -3 → Incarnate Word -3.5 | 53.5 → 54.5 | +139 / -175 |
| DraftKings | Incarnate Word -3 → Incarnate Word -3.5 | 53.5 → 54.5 | +139 / -175 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | Incarnate Word win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | Incarnate Word -0.5 | 53.9 | 51% |
| Market consensus | Incarnate Word -3.5 | 54.5 | 60% |
| Blended projection | Incarnate Word -3 | 54.9 | 58% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- Incarnate Word win probability
- model 51% · market (no-vig) 60% · difference -9 pts
- Margin
- model Incarnate Word -0.4 · market Incarnate Word -3.5 · difference -3.1 pts (Incarnate Word view)
- Total
- model 53.9 · market 54.5 · difference -0.6
Model margin is 3.1 pts more toward UT Rio Grande Valley 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 26.8, Incarnate Word 27.2 | Incarnate Word 51%right winner | 24.6 | 3.1 |
| New formula | UT Rio Grande Valley 26.5, Incarnate Word 27.4 | Incarnate Word 52%right winner | 24.1 | 3.1 |
Final: UT Rio Grande Valley 16, Incarnate Word 41. 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 Incarnate Word: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Incarnate Word |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 39.6 | 25.7 |
| Points allowed per game | 18.8 | 25.5 |
| Yards per play | 7.50 | 5.27 |
| Yards per play allowed | 4.99 | 5.74 |
| Rushing yards per game | 207.9 | 158.9 |
| Net passing yards per game | 242.0 | 239.6 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 134.4 | 116.5 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 221.6 | 243.3 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.73 | 1.27 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.64 | 0.55 |
| Sacks per game | 2.45 | 1.73 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 1.45 | 2.91 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Incarnate Word |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.10 | -0.03 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.05 | +0.03 |
| Success rate | 44.5% | 41.9% |
| Success rate allowed | 42.3% | 39.9% |
| Explosive play rate | 14.9% | 10.0% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 10.7% | 11.9% |
| Havoc rate | 12.6% | 13.7% |
| Havoc allowed | 11.3% | 14.5% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.66 | 3.01 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 3.16 | 3.62 |
| Average starting field position | opp 0 | opp 8 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 0 | opp 7 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 60.0 | 75.6 |
| Stat | UT Rio Grande Valley | Incarnate Word |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.05 | +0.00 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.16 | -0.05 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | +0.06 | -0.14 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.03 | +0.16 |
| Rushing success rate | 46.9% | 43.9% |
| Passing success rate | 45.5% | 40.1% |
| Run stuff rate | 17.2% | 18.5% |
| Passing-down success rate | 33.3% | 27.7% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 31.7% | 29.2% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 48.0% | 40.0% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 45.5% | 36.3% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 0.0% | 41.4% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 0.0% | 51.3% |
# = 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 · Incarnate Word schedule · all Week 7 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.