Closing spread
CIN -3
Total
44.5
Model margin
-0.3est.
TEN perspective
Push chance
7.4%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Titans
- Bengals
How each play moved the game.
Matchup
Where the edges are
Season-long league percentiles for both sides, mirrored. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge.
- +0.102EPA / play-0.113
- 48.2%Success rate40.6%
- +0.159EPA / dropback-0.080
- +0.023EPA / rush-0.171
- 9.1%Explosive rate6.1%
- 43.8%Third-down rate34.5%
- 60.3%Red-zone TD rate51.6%
- 2.30Points / drive1.17
- 1.9%Turnover rate2.5%
- +0.010EPA / play allowed+0.045
Bar length is league percentile, already oriented so longer is better. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge; rows within ~12 points are washed as even.
The rivalry
All square 10–10 since 1999
CIN have won 2 straight. Meetings average 45.1 points. TEN are 7-12-1 ATS in the series.
Possession by possession
How it unfolded
Every drive: who had the ball, how far it went, how it ended, and the score as it settled.
| Ball | Start | Plays | Yards | Result | CIN–TEN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEN | Q1 15:00 | 5 | 24 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 12:14 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 0–0 |
| TEN | Q1 10:20 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 9:20 | 10 | 59 | Missed field goal | 0–0 |
| TEN | Q1 3:25 | 10 | 58 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| CIN | Q2 12:50 | 9 | 40 | Turnover on downs | 0–7 |
| TEN | Q2 8:28 | 10 | 54 | Field goal | 0–10 |
| CIN | Q2 2:10 | 9 | 79 | Touchdown | 7–10 |
| TEN | Q2 0:33 | 1 | 4 | End of half | 7–10 |
| CIN | Q3 15:00 | 13 | 92 | Field goal | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q3 7:28 | 7 | 72 | Touchdown | 10–17 |
| CIN | Q3 4:32 | 6 | 18 | Punt | 10–17 |
| TEN | Q3 1:52 | 2 | 2 | Opp touchdown | 17–17 |
| TEN | Q3 1:01 | 6 | 23 | Punt | 17–17 |
| CIN | Q4 13:13 | 6 | 56 | Punt | 17–17 |
| TEN | Q4 9:50 | 10 | 69 | Field goal | 17–20 |
| CIN | Q4 4:54 | 4 | 31 | Touchdown | 24–20 |
| TEN | Q4 4:19 | 4 | 12 | Turnover | 24–20 |
| CIN | Q4 3:09 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 24–20 |
| TEN | Q4 2:38 | 1 | 6 | Turnover | 30–20 |
| CIN | Q4 2:29 | 1 | 1 | Touchdown | 31–20 |
| TEN | Q4 2:26 | 6 | 50 | Field goal | 31–23 |
| CIN | Q4 0:32 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 31–23 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bengals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carson Palmer | 27/33 | 272 | 2 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rudi Johnson | 18 | 80 | 4.4 | 1 |
| Chris Perry | 6 | 28 | 4.7 | 0 |
| Tab Perry | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Carson Palmer | 3 | 4 | 1.3 | 0 |
Titans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steve McNair | 26/41 | 259 | 0 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Brown | 18 | 84 | 4.7 | 2 |
| Courtney Roby | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Jarrett Payton | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 |
| Steve McNair | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 |
Where this game is likely to land
- Model
- Smooth (normal)
- Betting line
Probability of each final margin. Football scoring clusters — the spikes at 3 and 7 are real, and a smooth model misses them.
Positive margins favour Titans; negative favour Bengals.
Half-point at risk
7.39%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
48.1%
Expected total
46.1est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.91
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin-0.35