← Matchups

UTEP

CUSA · 1-1 · power -2.1 · #199
Our side · spreadUTEP +35.5 our number MICH -22.5 · 13.0 pts from the market our number starts from the opening line and is corrected -3.3 for this matchup by our data on both teams

Michigan

B1G · 2-0 · power +22.1 · #24
Our side
SpreadUTEP +35.5 ours MICH -22.5
TotalUnder 48.5 ours 48.5
MoneylineMICH to win ours 92%
Distance from the market 13.0 pts / +0.0 total a caution, not a signal
Projected score 13–36 UTEP – MICH
2026-09-19 · 3:30 PM Michigan Stadium · Ann Arbor, MI Early season

The books 1 account books · tap any price — the ticket builds at that book

Book UTEP spreadMICH spread OverUnder UTEP winMICH win UTEP TT overUTEP TT under MICH TT overMICH TT under
FanDuel

The gold price is the best available on that side; a gold marks the side our number implies — a read, not a pick. TT is a team total — that team’s own points, not the game’s; columns are empty where no book hangs one. Send to book opens whichever book you tapped, not the one we would have picked. Prices are the books’ own.

Ours vs the market

SpreadMichigan -22.5
the marketMichigan -35.5
Total48.5
the market48.5
Michigan win92% vs —

Both percentages are Michigan’s chance to win — ours, then the book’s with the vig removed, medianed across the books we track.

What the gap has been worth 10,740 games · 2016–2025

0–3 pts52.0%
3–750.2%
7–1449.3%
14+46.8%

How often the side we favoured covered, by how far our number sat from the market’s. Break-even at −110 is 52.4% — no bucket reaches it, and the rate falls as we disagree more. The further we sit from the market, the worse we have done.

First recorded meeting between these programs
2025 unit ranks — last completed season, from games actually played
Run game edge Michigan Wolverines 87 ranks
UTEP Miners #177 rush offense Michigan Wolverines #90 run defense
Pass game edge Michigan Wolverines 153 ranks
UTEP Miners #250 pass offense Michigan Wolverines #97 pass defense
Run game even 26 ranks apart
Michigan Wolverines #33 rush offense UTEP Miners #59 run defense
Pass game edge UTEP Miners 67 ranks
Michigan Wolverines #181 pass offense UTEP Miners #114 pass defense
UTEP Miners Balanced · 50% run Avg pace Dual-threat QB · 44 rush ypg Michigan Wolverines Balanced · 58% run Ball-control
Scotty Walden · 6-22 · defense-minded Sherrone Moore · 17-8

Ranked by team-unit strength (rush & pass offense vs. run & pass defense) across all 265 D1 teams, not by individual players. Identity, tempo and unit strength are measured from the 2025 season.

The evidence 2025 production and power ratings · supporting the number above

Who carried each team in 2025
UTEP Miners
TE Cash Cheeks 3 rec · 51 yds · 2 TD #55 TE
QB EJ Colson Jr. 291 pass yds · 4 TD · 0 INT #73 QB
RB Tavorus Jones 128 rush yds · 1 TD · 4 rec #205 RB
DL Derek Burns 4 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL #516 DL
Michigan Wolverines
DL Dom Nichols 10 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL #17 DL
DL John Henry Daley 11 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL #45 DL
LB Troy Bowles 21 tkl · 2.0 TFL #74 LB
WR JJ Buchanan 8 rec · 174 yds · 1 TD #81 WR

Top-rated players from last season, ranked within their position across D1. A grade measures what a player produced, and no 2026 game has been played yet — so this is who produced for these programs in 2025, not a claim about who is on the field this year.

Power breakdown
TeamPowerOffDefRank
UTEP MinersCUSA -2.1 +0.4 -2.5 #199
Michigan WolverinesB1G +22.1 +5.7 +16.4 #24

Def is higher = better. The projection assumes a 2.4-pt home edge (0 at neutral sites).

Where the number comes from
UTEP offense vs Michigan defense-15.9 pts
Michigan offense vs UTEP defense+8.2 pts
Travel · context onlyAway team travels 1,443 mi
Altitude · context only928 m lower than the visitor's home elevation

An efficiency adjustment from season-to-date EPA and success rate applies once teams have played enough games; before then it is 0 and the number is the power rating alone.

Situational spots are shown for context, not baked in: travel, altitude and rest were tested against 6,000+ games and the power and efficiency ratings already account for them. Adding them again would double-count.