Week 2 · Final
9 – 41
Vegas Line
Ole Miss -47.5
Total 61.5
Model Projection
MISS -44.0
MISS 99.9% win · O/U 61.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: CLT
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +4.3 pts toward MISS on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- MISS -15.0
- MISS: 16 portal additions / 10 departures, first year under Pete Golding — 2021–2025 archive weighted 15%, incoming portal talent +4.2 pts.
Charlotte — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Ole Miss ranks #118 nationally allowing 307.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #102 run defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Charlotte converts 64.7% of third downs (#14 nationally) versus Ole Miss's 37.5%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Charlotte is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; Ole Miss sits at -2.
4Clear 31 points
The market total for this game is 61.5. Anything above 31 points puts Charlotte on the winning side of an even split.
Ole Miss — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Charlotte ranks #129 nationally allowing 268.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #44 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Ole Miss converts 37.5% of third downs (#93 nationally) versus Charlotte's 64.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Ole Miss is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; Charlotte sits at -2.
4Clear 31 points
The market total for this game is 61.5. Anything above 31 points puts Ole Miss on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Leading Rusher
Primary Receiver
Defensive Leader
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
MISS by 44.0
Baseline MISS -44.0
Simulated Total
61.5
Baseline 61.5
Unit Edge
MISS QB
MISS Above average · CLT FBS average
CLT passing vs MISS coverage
| 322.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 307.0 |
| 68.3% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 10.6 |
| 7.9 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 62.1% |
| 1.50:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 10.3% |
| 0.255 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.470 |
CLT rushing vs MISS run defense
| 216.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 162.0 |
| 6.5 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 4.2 |
| 3.4 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 25.0% |
| 15.6% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 8 |
| 0.422 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | 0.317 |
MISS passing vs CLT coverage
| 132.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 336.0 |
| 10.2 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 56.8% |
| 69.2% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 9.1 |
| 15.4% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 3.00:1 |
| 0.378 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.535 |
Efficiency & situational
| 64.7% | Third-down conversion | 37.5% |
| 538.0 | Total yards / game | 488.0 |
| 400.0 | Yards allowed / game | 469.0 |
| -2 | Turnover margin | -2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.