Our side
MoneylineGWEB to win
ours 48%
Projected score
27–26
GWEB – UTM
2026-10-17 · 3:00 PM
Hardy M. Graham Stadium · Martin, TN
Conference game
Early season
The books
No book has priced this game. Nothing to compare, and no ticket to build.
Series
UT Martin lead
4–1
· 5 meetings since 2005
2025 unit ranks —
last completed season, from games actually played
Run game
edge UT Martin Skyhawks
50 ranks
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs #135 rush offense
UT Martin Skyhawks #85 run defense
Pass game
edge Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs
153 ranks
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs #95 pass offense
UT Martin Skyhawks #248 pass defense
Run game
even
8 ranks apart
UT Martin Skyhawks #199 rush offense
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs #191 run defense
Pass game
edge UT Martin Skyhawks
59 ranks
UT Martin Skyhawks #108 pass offense
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs #167 pass defense
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs
Balanced · 58% run
Avg pace
UT Martin Skyhawks
Run-heavy · 63% run
Ball-control
Dual-threat QB · 38 rush ypg
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
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs
LB
Tre Yanez
31 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#11 LB
DB
Jamarion Ravenell
14 tkl · 2 PD
#30 DB
WR
Kory Jones
18 rec · 288 yds
#58 WR
DB
Sabin McLaughlin
13 tkl · 1 PD
#133 DB
UT Martin Skyhawks
P
Max Zuluaga
8 punts · 51.4 yd avg
#1 P
DB
Trey Cotton
23 tkl · 1 INT
#12 DB
DL
Chris Wilson
14 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#78 DL
DB
Jamal Mayers
12 tkl · 3 PD
#73 DB
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
Def is higher = better. The projection assumes a 2.4-pt home edge (0 at neutral sites).
Where the number comes from
Gardner-Webb offense vs UT Martin defense-0.8 pts
UT Martin offense vs Gardner-Webb defense-4.9 pts
Efficiency adjustment · EPA, success rate, explosiveness+0.6 pts
Power projection before adjustment-1.3
Travel · context onlyAway team travels 410 mi
The projection carries an efficiency adjustment —
a residual from season-to-date EPA, success rate and explosiveness, which earned its place by
walk-forward test (margin error 12.90 → 12.72 across seven held-out seasons).
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.