Week 2 · Final
26 – 28
Vegas Line
Marshall -13.5
Total 57.5
Model Projection
MRSH -10.0
MRSH 82.3% win · O/U 57.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: MTSU
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +3.4 pts toward MTSU on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- MRSH -4.9
- MRSH: 0 portal additions / 2 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 94%, incoming portal talent −1.1 pts.
Middle Tennessee — Keys to Victory
1Attack through the air
Marshall ranks #121 nationally allowing 324.0 pass yards per game — a softer target than their #103 run defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Middle Tennessee converts 42.9% of third downs (#71 nationally) versus Marshall's 9.1%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Middle Tennessee is +1 in turnover margin (1 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; Marshall sits at -2.
4Clear 29 points
The market total for this game is 57.5. Anything above 29 points puts Middle Tennessee on the winning side of an even split.
Marshall — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Middle Tennessee ranks #90 nationally allowing 145.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #50 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Marshall converts 9.1% of third downs (#133 nationally) versus Middle Tennessee's 42.9%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Marshall is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; Middle Tennessee sits at +1.
4Clear 29 points
The market total for this game is 57.5. Anything above 29 points puts Marshall 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
MRSH by 10.0
Baseline MRSH -10.0
Simulated Total
57.5
Baseline 57.5
Unit Edge
MTSU QB
MRSH Below average · MTSU FBS average
MTSU passing vs MRSH coverage
| 200.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 324.0 |
| 76.9% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 12.0 |
| 7.7 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 74.1% |
| 2.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 3.7% |
| 0.334 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | 1.403 |
MTSU rushing vs MRSH run defense
| 196.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 163.0 |
| 8.9 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.6 |
| 4.4 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 5.3% |
| 9.1% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 4 |
| 0.523 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.085 |
MRSH passing vs MTSU coverage
| 145.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 103.0 |
| 6.6 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 67.9% |
| 59.1% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 3.7 |
| 0.0% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 0.00:1 |
| 0.157 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.169 |
Efficiency & situational
| 42.9% | Third-down conversion | 9.1% |
| 396.0 | Total yards / game | 147.0 |
| 290.0 | Yards allowed / game | 487.0 |
| +1 | Turnover margin | -2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.