College Football Week 0 Matchups
Saturday, August 26th, 9:00pm – Florida International @ Louisiana Tech, Joe Aillet Stadium, Ruston, LA
Statistics are representative of each team’s season averages coming into the week.
Opening Odds and Betting Trends
| Team | Spread | O/U | Moneyline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida International | +10.0 | 59.0 | +280 |
| Louisiana Tech | -10.0 | 59.0 | -365 |
| Team | ATS Record | Cover % | ATS +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida International | 5-7-0 | 41.7% | -3.7 |
| Louisiana Tech | 6-6-0 | 50.0% | -0.9 |
| Team | O/U Record | PPG | O/U +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida International | 6-6-0 | 16.9 | -1.8 |
| Louisiana Tech | 8-3-1 | 26.9 | 6.3 |
2022 CUSA Conference Standings
| Team | Conf W-L | Pct | GB | Overall W-L | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTSA | 9-0 | 1.000 | -- | 11-2 | 6-1 | 5-1 |
| WKU | 6-2 | 0.750 | 2.5 | 8-5 | 4-2 | 4-3 |
| North Texas | 6-3 | 0.667 | 3 | 7-6 | 5-1 | 2-5 |
| Middle Tennessee | 4-4 | 0.500 | 4.5 | 7-5 | 3-2 | 4-3 |
| UAB | 4-4 | 0.500 | 4.5 | 6-6 | 5-1 | 1-5 |
| Florida Atlantic | 4-4 | 0.500 | 4.5 | 5-7 | 4-2 | 1-5 |
| UTEP | 3-5 | 0.375 | 5.5 | 5-7 | 4-2 | 1-5 |
| Rice | 3-5 | 0.375 | 5.5 | 5-7 | 4-2 | 1-5 |
| Florida International | 2-6 | 0.250 | 6.5 | 4-8 | 2-4 | 2-4 |
| Louisiana Tech | 2-6 | 0.250 | 6.5 | 3-9 | 3-2 | 0-7 |
| Charlotte | 2-6 | 0.250 | 6.5 | 3-9 | 1-5 | 2-4 |
| Florida International Offensive Starters | ||||
| Pos | Starters | Rating | Stars | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TE-Y | Josiah Miamen | 0.86 | 3.60 | RS JR |
| QB | Grayson James | 0.85 | 3.50 | JR |
| WR-Z | Kris Mitchell | 0.83 | 3.30 | RS JR |
| OC | John Bock II | 0.82 | 3.20 | SO |
| LG | Wyatt Lawson | 0.81 | 3.10 | RS SO |
| LT | Travis Burke | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SO |
| RB | Shomari Lawrence | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS JR |
| RG | Jacob Peace | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SR/TR |
| RT | Phillip Houston | 0.70 | 2.00 | JR |
| WR-H | Jalen Bracey | 0.70 | 2.00 | SR/TR |
| WR-X | Dean Patterson | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SO |
| Average | 0.76 | 2.61 | ||
| Louisiana Tech Defensive Starters | ||||
| Pos | Starters | Rating | Stars | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLB | Hugh Davis | 0.85 | 3.50 | RS SR/TR |
| RDE | Mykol Clark | 0.85 | 3.50 | RS JR |
| LDE | Deshon Hall Jr. | 0.85 | 3.50 | SR |
| FS | Cecil Singleton Jr. | 0.80 | 3.00 | RS SR/TR |
| RCB | Keyshawn Paul | 0.80 | 3.00 | RS SR/TR |
| SS | Myles Heard | 0.78 | 2.80 | RS SR/TR |
| DT | Zion Nason | 0.70 | 2.00 | JR |
| LCB | Willie Roberts | 0.70 | 2.00 | SR/TR |
| NB | Demarcus Griffin-Taylor | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SR/TR |
| NT | Omar Pew | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS JR |
| WLB | Brevin Randle | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SR/TR |
| Average | 0.77 | 2.66 | ||
| Louisiana Tech Offensive Starters | ||||
| Pos | Starters | Rating | Stars | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QB | Hank Bachmeier | 0.91 | 4.13 | SR/TR |
| WR-X | Kyle Maxwell | 0.85 | 3.50 | RS JR |
| LT | Dakota White | 0.83 | 3.30 | SR |
| RT | Carson Bruno | 0.82 | 3.20 | RS SO |
| RG | Jerren Gilbert | 0.82 | 3.20 | RS JR |
| LG | Bert Hale | 0.81 | 3.10 | RS JR |
| RB | Marquis Crosby | 0.81 | 3.10 | RS SO |
| OC | Abraham Delfin | 0.70 | 2.00 | GR |
| TE | Nate Jones | 0.70 | 2.00 | JR |
| WR-H | Smoke Harris | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS SR |
| WR-Z | Cyrus Allen | 0.70 | 2.00 | SO |
| Average | 0.79 | 2.87 | ||
| Florida International Defensive Starters | ||||
| Pos | Starters | Rating | Stars | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LILB | Avery Huff | 0.92 | 4.25 | RS SR/TR |
| LOLB | Laterie Kinsler | 0.87 | 3.70 | RS SO |
| LDE | Jeramy Passmore | 0.86 | 3.60 | RS JR |
| RILB | Donovan Manuel | 0.86 | 3.60 | RS SR/TR |
| LCB | Adrian Cole | 0.85 | 3.50 | RS JR |
| NB | Jamal Potts | 0.85 | 3.50 | JR |
| RDE | Jordan Guerad | 0.82 | 3.20 | RS SO |
| RCB | Hezehiah Masses | 0.78 | 2.80 | SO |
| FS | D'Verick Daniel | 0.70 | 2.00 | SR/TR |
| NT | Jack Daly | 0.70 | 2.00 | SR/TR |
| ROLB | Alex Nobles | 0.70 | 2.00 | GR/TR |
| SS | JoJo Evans | 0.70 | 2.00 | RS JR |
| Average | 0.80 | 3.10 | ||
Florida International Offense vs Louisiana Tech Defense
| Category | FIU Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | LA Tech Def. | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass Yds/G | 210.5 | 88 | 229.9 | 71 | 231.5 | Opp. Pass Yds/G |
| Pass Yds/A | 5.6 | 123 | 7.2 | 62 | 7.2 | Opp. Pass Yds/A |
| Compl. % | 57.9% | 91 | 60.0% | 41 | 58.6% | Opp. Compl. % |
| Sack % Allowed | 3.9% | 21 | 6.6% | 124 | 3.8% | Sack % |
| Rush Yds/G | 108.5 | 113 | 155.0 | 131 | 252.2 | Opp. Rush Yds/G |
| Rush Yds/A | 3.6 | 92 | 4.2 | 129 | 6.3 | Opp. Rush Yds/A |
| Plays/G | 69.4 | 78 | 70.7 | 100 | 73.5 | Opp. Plays/G |
| Seconds/Play | 24.0 | 34 | 25.5 | 103 | 24.5 | Opp. Seconds/Play |
| Time of Poss. % | 46.3% | 114 | 49.9% | 70 | 50.4% | Opp. Time of Poss. % |
Louisiana Tech Offense vs Florida International Defense
| Category | LA Tech Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | FIU Def. | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass Yds/G | 271.9 | 27 | 229.9 | 96 | 252.1 | Opp. Pass Yds/G |
| Pass Yds/A | 7.4 | 61 | 7.2 | 93 | 7.6 | Opp. Pass Yds/A |
| Compl. % | 59.1% | 80 | 60.0% | 112 | 64.7% | Opp. Compl. % |
| Sack % Allowed | 7.9% | 81 | 6.6% | 109 | 4.7% | Sack % |
| Rush Yds/G | 109.1 | 112 | 155.0 | 112 | 198.2 | Opp. Rush Yds/G |
| Rush Yds/A | 3.4 | 107 | 4.2 | 102 | 4.8 | Opp. Rush Yds/A |
| Plays/G | 72.3 | 45 | 70.7 | 118 | 76.1 | Opp. Plays/G |
| Seconds/Play | 24.5 | 42 | 25.5 | 66 | 25.4 | Opp. Seconds/Play |
| Time of Poss. % | 49.6% | 70 | 49.9% | 114 | 53.7% | Opp. Time of Poss. % |
Down Analysis: Florida International Offense vs Louisiana Tech Defense
| Category | FIU Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | LA Tech Def. | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Down Pass % | 51.9% | 18 | 43.6% | 102 | 40.2% | Opp. 1st Down Pass % | |
| 1st Down Rush % | 48.1% | 114 | 56.4% | 30 | 59.8% | Opp. 1st Down Rush % | |
| 1st Down Explosiveness % | 7.9% | 127 | 12.7% | 125 | 17.0% | Opp. 1st Down Explosiveness % | |
| 1st Down Pass Success % | 43.5% | 109 | 49.3% | 54 | 47.2% | Opp. 1st Down Pass Success % | |
| 1st Down Rush Success % | 45.1% | 115 | 50.9% | 55 | 48.8% | Opp. 1st Down Rush Success % | |
| 1st Down Overall Success % | 44.3% | 114 | 50.2% | 51 | 48.2% | Opp. 1st Down Overall Success % | |
| 2nd Down Pass % | 55.2% | 41 | 49.1% | 126 | 39.6% | Opp. 2nd Down Pass % | |
| 2nd Down Rush % | 44.8% | 91 | 50.9% | 6 | 60.4% | Opp. 2nd Down Rush % | |
| 2nd Down Explosiveness % | 10.4% | 95 | 12.0% | 129 | 16.3% | Opp. 2nd Down Explosiveness % | |
| 2nd Down Pass Success % | 42.3% | 79 | 43.7% | 69 | 43.3% | Opp. 2nd Down Pass Success % | |
| 2nd Down Rush Success % | 50.4% | 59 | 48.7% | 70 | 48.0% | Opp. 2nd Down Rush Success % | |
| 2nd Down Overall Success % | 45.9% | 70 | 46.2% | 71 | 46.1% | Opp. 2nd Down Overall Success % | |
| 3rd Down Pass % | 69.0% | 33 | 62.9% | 25 | 67.8% | Opp. 3rd Down Pass % | |
| 3rd Down Rush % | 31.0% | 99 | 37.1% | 107 | 32.2% | Opp. 3rd Down Rush % | |
| 3rd Down Explosiveness % | 5.3% | 129 | 11.0% | 29 | 8.2% | Opp. 3rd Down Explosiveness % | |
| 3rd Down Pass Success % | 32.2% | 74 | 33.4% | 87 | 35.4% | Opp. 3rd Down Pass Success % | |
| 3rd Down Rush Success % | 37.7% | 125 | 50.2% | 119 | 59.6% | Opp. 3rd Down Rush Success % | |
| 3rd Down Conversion % | 29.1% | 124 | 38.7% | 113 | 44.7% | Opp. 3rd Down Conversion % |
Down Analysis: Louisiana Tech Offense vs Florida International Defense
| Category | LA Tech Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | FIU Def. | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Down Pass % | 52.0% | 17 | 43.6% | 94 | 41.0% | Opp. 1st Down Pass % |
| 1st Down Rush % | 48.0% | 115 | 56.4% | 38 | 59.0% | Opp. 1st Down Rush % |
| 1st Down Explosiveness % | 12.6% | 67 | 12.7% | 92 | 13.8% | Opp. 1st Down Explosiveness % |
| 1st Down Pass Success % | 48.0% | 76 | 49.3% | 121 | 55.8% | Opp. 1st Down Pass Success % |
| 1st Down Rush Success % | 45.0% | 116 | 50.9% | 61 | 49.4% | Opp. 1st Down Rush Success % |
| 1st Down Overall Success % | 46.5% | 108 | 50.2% | 91 | 52.0% | Opp. 1st Down Overall Success % |
| 2nd Down Pass % | 56.7% | 32 | 49.1% | 40 | 52.1% | Opp. 2nd Down Pass % |
| 2nd Down Rush % | 43.3% | 100 | 50.9% | 92 | 47.9% | Opp. 2nd Down Rush % |
| 2nd Down Explosiveness % | 10.3% | 94 | 12.0% | 7 | 7.6% | Opp. 2nd Down Explosiveness % |
| 2nd Down Pass Success % | 34.3% | 121 | 43.7% | 42 | 40.0% | Opp. 2nd Down Pass Success % |
| 2nd Down Rush Success % | 47.7% | 79 | 48.7% | 125 | 59.4% | Opp. 2nd Down Rush Success % |
| 2nd Down Overall Success % | 40.1% | 116 | 46.2% | 104 | 49.3% | Opp. 2nd Down Overall Success % |
| 3rd Down Pass % | 62.0% | 70 | 62.9% | 67 | 63.5% | Opp. 3rd Down Pass % |
| 3rd Down Rush % | 38.0% | 62 | 37.1% | 65 | 36.5% | Opp. 3rd Down Rush % |
| 3rd Down Explosiveness % | 12.9% | 42 | 11.0% | 91 | 12.7% | Opp. 3rd Down Explosiveness % |
| 3rd Down Pass Success % | 32.7% | 68 | 33.4% | 119 | 40.9% | Opp. 3rd Down Pass Success % |
| 3rd Down Rush Success % | 45.2% | 101 | 50.2% | 112 | 57.6% | Opp. 3rd Down Rush Success % |
| 3rd Down Conversion % | 35.8% | 89 | 38.7% | 126 | 48.5% | Opp. 3rd Down Conversion % |
Redzone and Goal to Go: Florida International Offense vs Louisiana Tech Defense
| Category | FIU Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | LA Tech Def. | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redzone Pass % | 47.7% | 28 | 39.9% | 93 | 35.8% | Opp. Redzone Pass % |
| Redzone Rush % | 52.3% | 104 | 60.1% | 38 | 64.2% | Opp. Redzone Rush % |
| Redzone Pass Success % | 43.9% | 41 | 38.2% | 51 | 34.1% | Opp. Redzone Pass Success % |
| Redzone Rush Success % | 44.4% | 104 | 51.2% | 25 | 41.8% | Opp. Redzone Rush Success % |
| Redzone FG Atts (Season) | 4 | 7 | 10.0 | 25 | 13 | Opp. Redzone FG Atts (Season) |
| Redzone Plays/TD | 6.1 | 75 | 6.1 | 82 | 5.8 | Opp. Redzone Plays/TD |
| Goal to Go Pass % | 42.9% | 26 | 32.8% | 108 | 26.1% | Opp. Goal to Go Pass % |
| Goal to Go Rush % | 57.1% | 105 | 67.2% | 24 | 73.9% | Opp. Goal to Go Rush % |
| Goal to Go Pass Success % | 46.7% | 35 | 36.3% | 34 | 25.0% | Opp. Goal to Go Pass Success % |
| Goal to Go Rush Success % | 40.0% | 115 | 52.7% | 18 | 38.2% | Opp. Goal to Go Rush Success % |
| Goal to Go Plays/TD | 4.3 | 108 | 3.7 | 22 | 4.4 | Opp. Goal to Go Plays/TD |
Redzone and Goal to Go: Louisiana Tech Offense vs Florida International Defense
| Category | LA Tech Off. | Rank | FBS Avg. | Rank | FIU Def. | Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redzone Pass % | 52.8% | 11 | 39.9% | 88 | 37.0% | Opp. Redzone Pass % | ||
| Redzone Rush % | 47.2% | 121 | 60.1% | 44 | 63.0% | Opp. Redzone Rush % | ||
| Redzone Pass Success % | 31.6% | 96 | 38.2% | 85 | 40.3% | Opp. Redzone Pass Success % | ||
| Redzone Rush Success % | 47.1% | 93 | 51.2% | 105 | 57.0% | Opp. Redzone Rush Success % | ||
| Redzone FG Atts (Season) | 13 | 113 | 10.0 | 53 | 11 | Opp. Redzone FG Atts (Season) | ||
| Redzone Plays/TD | 8.0 | 119 | 6.1 | 59 | 6.3 | Opp. Redzone Plays/TD | ||
| Goal to Go Pass % | 28.9% | 82 | 32.8% | 99 | 27.7% | Opp. Goal to Go Pass % | ||
| Goal to Go Rush % | 71.1% | 50 | 67.2% | 33 | 72.3% | Opp. Goal to Go Rush % | ||
| Goal to Go Pass Success % | 27.3% | 90 | 36.3% | 109 | 50.0% | Opp. Goal to Go Pass Success % | ||
| Goal to Go Rush Success % | 44.4% | 105 | 52.7% | 116 | 66.0% | Opp. Goal to Go Rush Success % | ||
| Goal to Go Plays/TD | 4.5 | 115 | 3.7 | 108 | 2.9 | Opp. Goal to Go Plays/TD |
Stat Descriptions
- *Success is a metric determined using the following calculations: The offense acheives 40% of the yards to gain on 1st down, 60% of the yards to gain on 2nd down, and 100% of the yards to gain on third down.
- *Explosiveness is a metric determined using the following calculations: a rush that goes for 10+ yards, a pass that goes for 20+ yards.
- *Ratings are determined from the player’s recruitment rating. However, if a player acheives a higher rating after transferring, the higher rating is used.
- *Stars are calculated using the following calculations: 0-0.6999 = 2 Star or NA, 0.7000-0.7999 = 2.XXXX Star, 0.8000-0.8999 = 3.XXXX Star, 0.9000-0.9799 = 4.XXXX Star, and 0.9800-1.0000 = 5 Star
- *Offensive and Defensive Starters may not always have 11 players as different packages may require different personnel, so there may be situations where a team acknowledges 12 or 13 starters on offense or defense.
- *Red and Green shading is used to determine if a team is above or below average in a stat category.
