Chattanooga

6-3

Player stats

Player stats · 2026 season

No player stats logged for this program yet — stats appear once the season is underway.

How scary each game got

Chattanooga lost at Eastern Kentucky after being 63% to win; the closest win was at West Georgia, down to 19%

50%W1L2W3W4L5W6W8W9

Tap a game for its score and win chances.

Each bar runs from the lowest to the highest chance our model gave Chattanooga during that game; the thick mark is where it started. Numbers are the game week.

Home-field advantage · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Chattanooga is worth +11.2 points more at home than on the road.

Top tenth of FBS, 100th percentile of 133 programs

50% at home, 0% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (1-1 home, 0-10 away). Interval ±12.3.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest
95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest
The stadium and how the home edge is measured

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge. The books use about 3. Per-team versions were tested and did not hold up (why). Against the closing line, Chattanooga has beaten the number by +3.0 more at home than away over 58 games. That is inside the ±9.3 that many games can resolve, so the results cannot tell this stadium from the flat number. That is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Finley Stadium seats 20,668 and has averaged 33% full (6,917, 14 games reported). Visitors cover a median 187 miles to get here (2018-present).

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 40 home games since 2018. No national trip rank shown: the ranked field is FBS venues only and leaves out the service academies and venues with too few measured games.

Home1-1Away0-10Edge+11.2 ±12.3Visitor trip187 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

How much of Chattanooga’s number is the schedule?

Raw EPA/play through week 10 is 0.05; adjusted for opponent strength, it's 0.01. The widest gap came in week 3: −0.09 raw vs. −0.02 adjusted.

0.07-0.02-0.11Wk 1Wk 6Wk 10Raw EPA/playOpponent-adjusted
0.07-0.02-0.11Wk 1Wk 6Wk 10RawAdjusted
Source CFB Zeitgeist · season-to-date, opponent-adjusted model
Havoc & trenchesDefense havoc rate 0.184, 80th percentile

Disruption, run-blocking, and down-and-distance efficiency.

Havoc rate (D) 0.184
80th
Havoc allowed (O) 0.136
67th
Front-seven havoc (D) 0.114
76th
Secondary havoc (D) 0.070
76th
Stuff rate (D) 0.183
38th
Stuff rate allowed (O) 0.163
72nd
Line yards (O) 3.009
54th
Line yards allowed (D) 2.551
86th
Standard-downs success (O) 0.417
10th
Standard-downs success allowed (D) 0.409
79th
Passing-downs success (O) 0.283
27th
Passing-downs success allowed (D) 0.216
97th
Screened 12 claims, 12 survived · 2026 season, FBS only, min. 3 games with data this season
Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way — then what happened.

Chattanooga’s breakout has happened before — and the 4 closest all held onto theirs.

Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.

Pittsburgh 2000–2005
kept climbing
Memphis 1960–1965
held the gain
Florida 1955–1960
kept climbing
North Carolina 1969–1974
kept climbing

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

CFB Zeitgeist “Go Mocs.”
This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. Text written by our model says so in a line beneath it, and it can get facts wrong. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site