Our side
MoneylineSEMO to win
ours 54%
Projected score
25–26
UTM – SEMO
2026-11-21 · 2:00 PM
Houck Field · Cape Girardeau, MO
Conference game
Early season
The books
No book has priced this game. Nothing to compare, and no ticket to build.
Series
UT Martin lead
13–9
· 22 meetings since 2003
2025 unit ranks —
last completed season, from games actually played
Run game
edge Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
95 ranks
UT Martin Skyhawks #199 rush offense
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks #104 run defense
Pass game
edge UT Martin Skyhawks
54 ranks
UT Martin Skyhawks #108 pass offense
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks #162 pass defense
Run game
edge UT Martin Skyhawks
158 ranks
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks #243 rush offense
UT Martin Skyhawks #85 run defense
Pass game
edge Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
123 ranks
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks #125 pass offense
UT Martin Skyhawks #248 pass defense
UT Martin Skyhawks
Run-heavy · 63% run
Ball-control
Dual-threat QB · 38 rush ypg
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
Balanced · 45% run
Avg pace
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
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
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
DB
DJ Delmore
22 tkl · 2 PD
#20 DB
DL
Timothy Maxson
12 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#72 DL
P
Teagan Cobb
15 punts · 45.4 yd avg
#12 P
WR
John Anthony Jr.
10 rec · 219 yds · 2 TD
#98 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
Def is higher = better. The projection assumes a 2.4-pt home edge (0 at neutral sites).
Where the number comes from
UT Martin offense vs Southeast Missouri State defense-5.2 pts
Southeast Missouri State offense vs UT Martin defense-4.1 pts
Efficiency adjustment · EPA, success rate, explosiveness-2.3 pts
Power projection before adjustment+3.9
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).