Vegas Line
Auburn -33.5
Total 56.5
Model Projection
AUB -30.0
AUB 99.0% win · O/U 56.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: USM
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +7.3 pts toward AUB on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- AUB -5.2
- AUB: 13 portal additions / 13 departures, first year under Alex Golesh — 2021–2025 archive weighted 15%, incoming portal talent −2.5 pts.
- USM: 0 portal additions / 2 departures, first year under Blake Anderson — 2021–2025 archive weighted 64%, incoming portal talent −1.0 pts.
Southern Miss — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Auburn ranks #122 nationally allowing 333.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #63 run defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Southern Miss converts 41.7% of third downs (#76 nationally) versus Auburn's 55.6%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Southern Miss is +4 in turnover margin (5 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Auburn sits at -1.
4Clear 29 points
The market total for this game is 56.5. Anything above 29 points puts Southern Miss on the winning side of an even split.
Auburn — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Southern Miss ranks #64 nationally allowing 104.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #34 pass defense.
2Contain Steven Robinson
Southern Miss's top producer this season: 123 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Auburn has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Auburn converts 55.6% of third downs (#31 nationally) versus Southern Miss's 41.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Fix the turnover margin
Auburn is -1 in turnover margin (2 forced, 3 lost) across 1 recorded games; Southern Miss sits at +4.
5Clear 29 points
The market total for this game is 56.5. Anything above 29 points puts Auburn on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Ethan HamptonUSM · QB
- Passing Yds
- 180
- Completion %
- 56.5%
- Yards / Attempt
- 7.8
- TD : INT
- 1 : 1
- TD/INT Ratio
- 1.00:1
- Passer Rating
- 127.9
Leading Rusher
Steven RobinsonUSM · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 123
- Carries
- 23
- Yards / Carry
- 5.3
- Rushing TD
- 3
- Long
- 12
Primary Receiver
Mario Sanders IIUSM · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 94
- Receptions
- 6
- Yards / Catch
- 15.7
- Receiving TD
- 1
- Long
- 38
Defensive Leader
Mathis HaygoodUSM · LB
- Tackles
- 8
- Solo
- 0
- Sacks
- 0.5
- TFL
- 0.5
- INT
- 0
Matchup Simulator
Starts from the CFB 360 projection for this exact game. Turnover swings are valued at 4.2 points each; pace scales the projected total against a 140-play baseline.
Simulated Winner
AUB by 30.0
Baseline AUB -30.0
Simulated Total
56.5
Baseline 56.5
Unit Edge
AUB QB
AUB Above average · USM FBS average
USM passing vs AUB coverage
| 226.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 333.0 |
| 55.6% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 6.2 |
| 8.4 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 50.0% |
| 1.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 1.9% |
| 0.414 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.309 |
USM rushing vs AUB run defense
| 317.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 103.0 |
| 5.6 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 2.3 |
| 4.4 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 23.3% |
| 8.3% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 8 |
| 0.590 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.257 |
AUB passing vs USM coverage
| 119.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 259.0 |
| 5.2 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 74.3% |
| 65.2% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 7.4 |
| 4.3% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 0.00:1 |
| 0.495 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.108 |
Efficiency & situational
| 41.7% | Third-down conversion | 55.6% |
| 543.0 | Total yards / game | 389.0 |
| 223.0 | Yards allowed / game | 436.0 |
| +4 | Turnover margin | -1 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.