A moderate disagreement of 2.5 points.
Across five seasons, cards this far from the market claimed 57% accuracy and delivered 49%. That gap is where this grade comes from.
How much weight this card's information deserves — not a recommendation.
Why
what the model is reading-
Defense, in points
UTAH +8.8 pts
- Pace and possessions 110 plays · 51st percentile
-
Offense, in points
UTAH +3.2 pts
Be careful about
- One book is quoting this game, so the market number has no depth behind it and may move sharply.
Projection built Oct 29, 2026 4:14 AM ETMarket updated Oct 29, 2026 4:14 AM ETData status
New to Atlas? What a card is, and what a grade means
Market detail where the line opened, where it is now, and the prices
| Spread | Open | Current | Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | −9.5 | −6.5 | +3.0 |
| Cincinnati | +9.5 | +6.5 | −3.0 |
| Price | −110 | −105 | — |
The spread has moved 3.0 toward Cincinnati since the open.
| Total | Open | Current | Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Game total | 56.5 | 56.5 | unchanged |
| Price (over) | −110 | −110 | — |
DraftKings · 1 book quoting
Projection detail the projected score, the chance of winning, the total's range and the most likely exact score
Atlas difference
| Measure | Atlas model | Market | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | UTAH −9.0 | UTAH −6.5 | −2.5 |
| Total | 53.3 | 56.5 | −3.2 |
| Cincinnati win probability | 29.7% | 30.9% | −1.2 pts |
Matchup how each offense compares with the defense it faces, season to date, ranked among 138 FBS teams
Season to date through 24 October: Utah 7 games, Cincinnati 7 games. Ranks are among 138 FBS teams, 1st the best; the crest marks which side ranks better on each line.
edge Utahedge Utahedge Utahedge Utahedge Utahedge Cincinnatiedge Utahedge Utahedge Utahedge Cincinnatiedge Cincinnatiedge Utahedge Cincinnatiedge Cincinnatiedge Cincinnatiedge CincinnatiFigures come from completed games only, so every one was known before kickoff. They are raw, not adjusted for opponents - All drivers has Atlas's adjusted view. College counts sack yardage as rushing, as the NCAA does.
Other models what FPI, SP+ and Elo say about this game, beside Atlas and the market
| Model | Margin | Win | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| FPI (ESPN) | UTAH by 7.5 | 71% | Oct 28 |
| SP+ | UTAH by 8.8 | — | Oct 29 |
| Elo | UTAH by 12.6 | — | Oct 29 |
| Atlas | UTAH by 9.0 | 70% | live |
| Market | UTAH by 6.5 | — | live |
Each model's number for this game as its source published it before kickoff; Win is the favored side's chance to win, where the model gives one. FPI's margin and chance are ESPN's own. SP+ is the difference in the two teams' ratings, plus 2.5 for a home side; Elo is the difference in ratings at 24 points a point, plus 2.6 for a home side, as Atlas measured it on past seasons. None of these is an input to Atlas's number, and none is here to settle anything: they show where Atlas sits among other models.
How this grade was computed the four things that set the letter, out of a hundred
Mixed card
The disagreement is wide enough that the model's historical claim runs well ahead of what it delivered.
Atlas sits 2.5 points from the market. The calibration curve, fitted to every completed season out of sample, expects cards at that distance to fall 10.1% short of what they claim — which is where the calibration component above comes from.
The total has moved 3.0 points since it opened. Cards on a market that has moved have calibrated worse in five of six seasons.
The grade describes how much weight the information deserves. It says nothing about which side of a market anyone should take, and Atlas does not publish that. How grades are computed.
All drivers all 4 things the model is reading, and how each team ranks against the rest of the country
Atlas rates Utah's defense at +9.9 points a game against FBS average and Cincinnati's at +1.2, opponent-adjusted, after 6 games this season.
A combined 110 plays per game — the 51st percentile of this season's games. A middling number of possessions either way.
Atlas rates Utah's offense at +6.9 points a game against FBS average and Cincinnati's at +3.7, opponent-adjusted, after 6 games this season.
Playing at home is worth 2.6 points in this season's model, fitted, not assumed.
Market movement how far the market has moved since the number opened, and which way
Total, open to current
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Opening number | 56.5 |
| Current number | 56.5 |
| Market direction | unchanged |
| Atlas direction | down |
Atlas and the market point opposite ways on this total. That is information, not a verdict.
Two findings that are not in conflict
Atlas has measured disagreement twice, against two different reference points, and they say different things.
| Measured against | What it predicts |
|---|---|
| The closing number | the model's own failure — so a large difference lowers the grade |
| The opening number | which way the line moves — tracked publicly, not graded |
A model far from the close is wrong; a model far from the open is early. The second finding is tracked in the open closing-line record and is deliberately kept out of the grade.
Reliability record what Atlas claimed and what it delivered, across the seasons it never saw while being built
Calibration by disagreement band
Two series, labeled directly. The widening gap is why Atlas grades large disagreements down.
This band, five seasons
| Measure | This band | All cards |
|---|---|---|
| Realized accuracy | 48.6% | 49.2% |
| Claimed accuracy | 57.1% | 58.0% |
| Calibration gap | −8.5 pts | −8.8 pts |
| Seasons above 50% | 1 of 5 | — |
| Games measured | 1,123 | 3,864 |