Vegas Line
Miami -24.5
Total 46.5
Model Projection
MIA -21.0
MIA 96.2% win · O/U 46.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: STAN
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +1.4 pts toward MIA on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- MIA -11.5
- STAN: 0 portal additions / 0 departures, first year under Tavita Pritchard — 2021–2025 archive weighted 70%, incoming portal talent 0.0 pts.
- MIA: 8 portal additions / 5 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 59%, incoming portal talent +5.0 pts.
Miami — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Stanford ranks #128 nationally allowing 352.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #46 run defense.
2Contain Micah Ford
Stanford's top producer this season: 126 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Miami has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Miami converts 72.7% of third downs (#5 nationally) versus Stanford's 38.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Fix the turnover margin
Miami is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; Stanford sits at +3.
5Clear 24 points
The market total for this game is 46.5. Anything above 24 points puts Miami on the winning side of an even split.
Stanford — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Miami ranks #90 nationally allowing 221.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #44 run defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Stanford converts 38.7% of third downs (#86 nationally) versus Miami's 72.7%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Stanford is +3 in turnover margin (3 forced, 0 lost) across 2 recorded games; Miami sits at -2.
4Clear 24 points
The market total for this game is 46.5. Anything above 24 points puts Stanford on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Davis WarrenSTAN · QB
- Passing Yds
- 524
- Completion %
- 57.3%
- Yards / Attempt
- 7.0
- TD : INT
- 1 : 0
- TD/INT Ratio
- No INTs
- Passer Rating
- 120.4
Leading Rusher
Micah FordSTAN · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 126
- Carries
- 36
- Yards / Carry
- 3.5
- Rushing TD
- 3
- Long
- 28
Primary Receiver
Benjamin BlackburnSTAN · TE
- Receiving Yds
- 101
- Receptions
- 12
- Yards / Catch
- 8.4
- Receiving TD
- 0
- Long
- 16
Defensive Leader
Matt RoseSTAN · LB
- Tackles
- 21
- Solo
- 10
- Sacks
- 0.0
- TFL
- 1.5
- 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
MIA by 21.0
Baseline MIA -21.0
Simulated Total
46.5
Baseline 46.5
Unit Edge
MIA QB
STAN FBS average · MIA Top 25 level
MIA passing vs STAN coverage
| 428.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 352.0 |
| 85.7% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 8.1 |
| 12.2 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 70.1% |
| 5.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 2.3% |
| 1.072 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 0.440 |
MIA rushing vs STAN run defense
| 121.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 83.5 |
| 3.8 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.1 |
| 3.0 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 12.5% |
| 15.8% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 9 |
| 0.049 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.020 |
STAN passing vs MIA coverage
| 221.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 265.5 |
| 5.3 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 57.9% |
| 52.4% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 7.0 |
| 2.4% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 1.00:1 |
| 0.196 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.324 |
Efficiency & situational
| 72.7% | Third-down conversion | 38.7% |
| 549.0 | Total yards / game | 391.0 |
| 299.0 | Yards allowed / game | 435.5 |
| -2 | Turnover margin | +3 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.