Week 1 · Final
13 – 62
Vegas Line
Mississippi State -28.5
Total 54.5
Model Projection
MSST -25.0
MSST 97.9% win · O/U 54.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: ULM
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +11.5 pts toward MSST on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- MSST -5.5
- MSST: 4 portal additions / 2 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 81%, incoming portal talent +1.4 pts.
UL Monroe — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Mississippi State ranks #84 nationally allowing 138.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #47 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
UL Monroe converts 18.8% of third downs (#128 nationally) versus Mississippi State's 45.5%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
UL Monroe is +0 in turnover margin (0 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; Mississippi State sits at +0.
4Clear 28 points
The market total for this game is 54.5. Anything above 28 points puts UL Monroe on the winning side of an even split.
Mississippi State — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
UL Monroe ranks #138 nationally allowing 345.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #136 pass defense.
2Contain Austin Carlisle
UL Monroe's top producer this season: 50 rushing yards (QB). Their production line is the first thing Mississippi State has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Mississippi State converts 45.5% of third downs (#61 nationally) versus UL Monroe's 18.8%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Protect the turnover edge
Mississippi State is +0 in turnover margin (0 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; UL Monroe sits at +0.
5Clear 28 points
The market total for this game is 54.5. Anything above 28 points puts Mississippi State on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Austin CarlisleULM · QB
- Passing Yds
- 73
- Completion %
- 60.0%
- Yards / Attempt
- 7.3
- TD : INT
- 1 : 0
- TD/INT Ratio
- No INTs
- Passer Rating
- 154.3
Leading Rusher
Austin CarlisleULM · QB
- Rushing Yds
- 50
- Carries
- 7
- Yards / Carry
- 7.1
- Rushing TD
- 0
- Long
- 18
Primary Receiver
Derrick JamesonULM · RB
- Receiving Yds
- 40
- Receptions
- 1
- Yards / Catch
- 40.0
- Receiving TD
- 1
- Long
- 40
Defensive Leader
Noah FlemmingsULM · LB
- Tackles
- 9
- Solo
- 4
- Sacks
- 0.0
- TFL
- 0.0
- 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
MSST by 25.0
Baseline MSST -25.0
Simulated Total
54.5
Baseline 54.5
Unit Edge
MSST QB
MSST Above average · ULM Below average
ULM passing vs MSST coverage
| 140.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 140.0 |
| 57.1% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 5.0 |
| 5.0 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 57.1% |
| 1.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 7.1% |
| -0.095 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | -0.095 |
ULM rushing vs MSST run defense
| 138.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 138.0 |
| 3.5 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.5 |
| 2.8 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 12.5% |
| 12.5% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 6 |
| -0.123 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.123 |
MSST passing vs ULM coverage
| 417.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 417.0 |
| 9.9 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 64.3% |
| 64.3% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 9.9 |
| 0.0% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 4.00:1 |
| 0.540 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.540 |
Efficiency & situational
| 18.8% | Third-down conversion | 45.5% |
| 278.0 | Total yards / game | 762.0 |
| 762.0 | Yards allowed / game | 278.0 |
| 0 | Turnover margin | 0 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.