As we ready ourselves for the upcoming second expanded College Football Playoff, it never hurts to be on top of any key analytical data that might affect how you handicap the games. While we will have much more on our College Football Betting Hub at VSiN.com over the next month or so, I thought this CFP Guide would be a great place to share some trends, systems, stats, and strength ratings to help get you ready for the bracket play, which begins December 19th. Be sure to stay tuned to VSiN throughout the bowl/playoff season, as I personally will have plenty more analysis to share along the way.

Playoff Teams, Seeds, and Won-Lost/ATS/Over-Under Records

#1 INDIANA (Big Ten): 13-0 SU, 8-5-0 ATS, 8-5 O-U – PF/PA: 41.9 / 10.8

#2 OHIO STATE (Big Ten): 12-1 SU, 10-3-0 ATS, 4-9 O-U – PF/PA: 34.9 / 8.2

#3 GEORGIA (SEC): 12-1 SU, 6-7-0 ATS, 5-8 O-U – PF/PA: 31.9 / 15.9

#4 TEXAS TECH (Big 12): 12-1 SU, 11-2-0 ATS, 5-8 O-U – PF/PA: 42.5 / 10.9

#5 OREGON (Big Ten): 11-1 SU, 8-4-0 ATS, 6-6 O-U – PF/PA: 38.2 / 14.8

#6 OLE MISS (SEC): 11-1 SU, 7-5-0 ATS, 6-6 O-U – PF/PA: 37.3 / 20.1

#7 TEXAS A&M (SEC): 11-1 SU, 5-7-0 ATS, 8-4 O-U – PF/PA: 36.3 / 21.9

#8 OKLAHOMA (SEC): 10-2 SU, 7-5-0 ATS, 2-10 O-U – PF/PA: 26.4 / 13.9

#9 ALABAMA (SEC): 10-3 SU, 7-4-2 ATS, 4-9 O-U – PF/PA: 31.2 / 17.4

#10 MIAMI (FL) (ACC): 10-2 SU, 7-5-0 ATS, 5-7 O-U – PF/PA: 34.1 / 13.8

#11 TULANE (American): 11-2 SU, 6-6-1 ATS, 4-9 O-U – PF/PA: 29.1 / 22.6

#12 JAMES MADISON (Sun Belt): 12-1 SU, 8-5-0 ATS, 6-7 O-U – PF/PA: 37.3 / 15.8

Key Team Stats/Ranks among CFP teams

Strength of Schedule (Avg Opponent PR)

1. OKLAHOMA: 50.33

2. TEXAS A&M: 49.23

3. ALABAMA: 49.22

4. GEORGIA: 48.89

5. OREGON: 47.91

6. MIAMI (FL): 45.85

7. OLE MISS: 45.41

8. INDIANA: 44.11

9. OHIO STATE: 43.86

10. TULANE: 38.74

11. TEXAS TECH: 37.81

12. JAMES MADISON: 31.74

Effective Offensive Points Per Game

1. INDIANA: 53.4

2. OREGON: 49.9

3. TEXAS TECH: 49.2

4. OLE MISS: 48.1

5. TEXAS A&M: 46.4

6. OHIO STATE: 46.1

7. ALABAMA: 46

8. GEORGIA: 41.6

9. MIAMI (FL): 41.5

10. OKLAHOMA: 37.8

11. JAMES MADISON: 37.6

12. TULANE: 32.8

Effective Defensive Points Per Game

1. OHIO STATE: 1.4

2. OKLAHOMA: 3.3

3. MIAMI (FL): 3.6

4. INDIANA: 4.4

5. GEORGIA: 5.6

6. OREGON: 6.3

7. TEXAS TECH: 6.7

8. ALABAMA: 8

9. TEXAS A&M: 11.2

10. JAMES MADISON: 13.3

11. OLE MISS: 13.7

12. TULANE: 16.3

Effective Offensive Time of Possession Per Game

1. GEORGIA: 34.75

2. JAMES MADISON: 34.38

3. OHIO STATE: 33.79

4. MIAMI (FL): 33.72

5. INDIANA: 33.66

6. ALABAMA: 33.15

7. TEXAS A&M: 32.4

8. OREGON: 30.93

9. TEXAS TECH: 30.62

10. TULANE: 30.49

11. OLE MISS: 29.7

12. OKLAHOMA: 29.46

Effective Offensive Yards Per Play

1. OREGON: 8.72

2. INDIANA: 8.42

3. TEXAS A&M: 8.17

4. OHIO STATE: 8.03

5. OLE MISS: 7.94

6. MIAMI (FL): 7.54

7. ALABAMA: 7.29

8. GEORGIA: 7.2

9. TEXAS TECH: 7.18

10. TULANE: 6.97

11. OKLAHOMA: 6.77

12. JAMES MADISON: 6.6

Effective Defensive Yards per Play

1. OHIO STATE: 3.28

2. OREGON: 3.49

3. OKLAHOMA: 3.51

4. TEXAS TECH: 3.64

5. MIAMI (FL): 3.86

6. INDIANA: 3.9

7. ALABAMA: 4.05

8. GEORGIA: 4.07

9. JAMES MADISON: 4.08

10. TEXAS A&M: 4.21

11. OLE MISS: 4.48

12. TULANE: 4.94

Effective Offensive Yards Per Point

1. INDIANA: 10.63

2. TEXAS TECH: 10.95

3. ALABAMA: 10.96

4. OHIO STATE: 11.13

5. OREGON: 11.46

6. OKLAHOMA: 11.8

7. TEXAS A&M: 12.2

8. MIAMI (FL): 12.27

9. JAMES MADISON: 12.35

10. OLE MISS: 12.35

11. GEORGIA: 12.4

12. TULANE: 14.1

Effective Defensive Yards Per Point

1. OHIO STATE: 125.24

2. OKLAHOMA: 69.06

3. MIAMI (FL): 66.68

4. INDIANA: 49.54

5. GEORGIA: 43.41

6. TEXAS TECH: 35.29

7. OREGON: 33.54

8. ALABAMA: 29.27

9. TEXAS A&M: 23.08

10. OLE MISS: 20.88

11. TULANE: 20.79

12. JAMES MADISON: 18.6

Turnover Differential Per Game

1. INDIANA: +1.3

1. TEXAS TECH: +1.3

3. MIAMI (FL): +0.8

3. TULANE: +0.8

5. OREGON: +0.7

6. ALABAMA: +0.6

7. OHIO STATE: +0.3

8. GEORGIA: +0.0

9. JAMES MADISON: -0.1

10. OKLAHOMA: -0.2

10. OLE MISS: -0.2

12. TEXAS A&M: -0.6

Sacks Allowed Per Game

1. TULANE: 0.8

2. MIAMI (FL): 0.9

3. OHIO ST: 0.9

4. TEXAS A&M: 1

5. OLE MISS: 1.1

6. OREGON: 1.3

7. GEORGIA: 1.3

8. INDIANA: 1.5

9. JAMES MADISON: 1.7

10. TEXAS TECH: 1.8

11. ALABAMA: 2.2

12. OKLAHOMA: 2.2

Sacks Per Game

1. TEXAS A&M: 3.6

2. OKLAHOMA: 3.6

3. MIAMI (FL): 2.9

4. JAMES MADISON: 2.9

5. TEXAS TECH: 2.9

6. INDIANA: 2.8

7. TULANE: 2.6

8. OHIO STATE: 2.6

9. OLE MISS: 2.1

10. OREGON: 1.8

11. ALABAMA: 1.8

12. GEORGIA: 1.4

Offensive 3rd Down Conversion %

1. INDIANA: 55.5%

2. OHIO STATE: 54.2%

3. TEXAS TECH: 51.2%

4. OREGON: 48.6%

5. MIAMI (FL): 47.9%

6. JAMES MADISON: 47.4%

7. OLE MISS: 46.0%

8. GEORGIA: 45%

9. ALABAMA: 44.2%

10. TULANE: 42.4%

11. TEXAS A&M: 40.4%

12. OKLAHOMA: 38.6%

Defensive 3rd Down Conversion %

1. TEXAS A&M: 22.3%

2. INDIANA: 28.1%

3. JAMES MADISON: 28.7%

4. OHIO STATE: 28.8%

5. OKLAHOMA: 28.8%

6. MIAMI (FL): 29.6%

7. TEXAS TECH: 31.0%

8. OREGON: 34.3%

9. ALABAMA: 34.9%

10. GEORGIA: 35.1%

11. OLE MISS: 35.8%

12. TULANE: 40.1%

Hot Teams

  • Ohio State was 8-2 ATS in its last 10 games
  • Oregon won its final three games ATS
  • Texas Tech went 10-1 both SU and ATS in its last 11 games

Not Hot Teams

  • Miami was just 3-4 ATS in its final seven games
  • Ole Miss was just 3-4 ATS in its last seven contests
  • Texas A&M closed the season on a 0-3 ATS skid
  • Tulane was only 3-4-1 ATS in its last eight games

Hot Over the Total Teams

  • James Madison was 5-2 Over the total in its last seven games

Hot Under the Total Teams

  • Alabama has gone Under the total in nine of its last 10 games
  • Georgia went Under the total in its final four games
  • Ohio State closed the season on 8-3 Under the total surge
  • Oklahoma went Under the total in 10 of 12 games this season
  • Texas Tech was 8-3 Under the total in its last 11 games
  • Tulane was 8-2 Under the total in the last 10 and 4-0 in the last four
  • Favorites are 7-1 SU and ATS in Alabama’s last eight bowl games
  • Alabama is just 3-8 ATS in its last 11 Big 6 Bowl/Playoff level games
  • Favorites have won the last eight Georgia bowl games going 6-2 ATS
  • Georgia has gone 10-1 SU and 9-2 ATS in the last 11 bowl/playoff games as a favorite
  • Indiana is 0-7 SU and 2-5 ATS in bowl/playoff games since 1993
  • Miami has been one of the country’s worst bowl/playoff teams, 2-12 SU and ATS in the last 14
  • Miami has lost its last five bowl/playoff games as an underdog, both SU and ATS
  • Ohio State is 18-9 ATS in bowl/playoff games since 2003, including 4-0 SU and ATS last year
  • Favorites are 14-3 SU and 10-6-1 ATS in Oklahoma’s last 17 bowl/playoff games
  • Oklahoma has gone Over the total in five of the last six bowl/playoff games
  • Prior to last year’s 52-20 Ole Miss rout of Duke, underdogs had won four straight Ole Miss bowl/playoff games SU and ATS
  • Oregon is just 4-6 SU and 3-7 ATS in its last 10 bowl/playoff games
  • Favorites are on 6-2 SU and ATS surge in the last eight Oregon Big 6 bowl/playoff level games
  • Texas A&M is 7-3 Over the total in its last 10 bowl/playoff games
  • Underdogs are on 11-10 SU and 15-6 ATS surge in Texas Tech bowl/playoff games
  • Georgia’s KIRBY SMART is on a seven-game outright winning streak as a bowl/playoff game favorite while going 5-2 ATS
  • Miami’s MARIO CRISTOBAL has lost four straight bowl/playoff games SU and ATS, his defense allowing 38.5 PPG
  • Ohio State’s RYAN DAY shook off a 2-4 SU and ATS bowl/playoff/game record prior to go 4-0 SU & ATS last year
  • BRENT VENABLES has lost all three prior bowl/playoff games with Oklahoma while going 1-1-1 ATS

(295) ALABAMA at (296) OKLAHOMA
* OKLAHOMA is on a 3-1 SU and 4-0 ATS run vs. Alabama since 2014
* Underdogs have won the last six games ATS in the ALA-OKL series
* The last three games in the ALA-OKL series went Under the total

(293) TULANE at (294) OLE MISS
* OLE MISS is 6-0 SU and 5-1 ATS vs. Tulane since 2000, including a 45-10 decision in Oxford, MS in September
* Four of the last five games in the Tulane-Ole Miss series went Under the total

(297) MIAMI at (298) TEXAS A&M
* MIAMI owns a 3-1 SU and ATS edge in four meetings with Texas A&M since 2007, most recently a 48-33 decision in Miami in September 2023.
* Three of the last four games in the Tulane-Ole Miss series went Over the total

First Round Playoff Games held at home sites
(291) JAMES MADISON at (292) OREGON
(293) TULANE at (294) OLE MISS
(295) ALABAMA at (296) OKLAHOMA
(297) MIAMI (FL) at (298) TEXAS A&M

* Home favorites were 4-0 SU and ATS in 2024 CFP first round, all double-digit wins
* On totals, both 2024 CFP first-round games with totals below 50 went Over, both games with totals above 50 went Under

CFP Quarterfinals at bowl series sites

Cotton Bowl (257) TBD vs. (258) OHIO STATE
* Favorites are on runs of 8-2 SU & ATS and 12-4 SU and ATS in Cotton Bowl series
* Outright winners are on a 22-0-1 ATS run in the last 23 Cotton Bowl games

Orange Bowl (259) TBD vs. (260) TEXAS TECH
* Underdogs are 15-7 ATS in the Orange Bowl dating back to 2004
* Orange Bowl totals are 8-4 Over dating back to 2014

Rose Bowl (261) TBD vs. (262) INDIANA
* Big Ten teams have gone Over the total in 13 of the last 17 Rose Bowl games
* Favorites are on a 15-3 SU and 12-6 ATS run in the last 18 years of Rose Bowl games

Sugar Bowl (263) TBD vs. (264) GEORGIA
* Outright winners are 24-1-1 ATS since 2000 in the Sugar Bowl

CFP Semifinals at bowl series sites (matchups TBD)

Fiesta Bowl
* Outright winners have lost ATS just twice in the last 33 Fiesta Bowl games
* Favorites have gone 7-1 SU and ATS in the last seven Fiesta Bowl games 

Peach Bowl
* Underdogs own 22-9-1 ATS edge in the Peach Bowl series since 1993, including L3 ATS
* The last three Peach Bowl games went Over the total, producing 71.6 PPG

CFP National Championship Game at Hard Rock Stadium, Miami, FL (matchup TBD)

* FAVORITES have swept the L6 National Championship games both SU & ATS
* Bettors are on a 0-12-2 swoon when moving totals in the National Championship game

  • ACC teams have lost 10 straight Big 6 Bowl/Playoff-level games since 2019 (Miami)
  • American Athletic Conference teams are on a 3-2 SU and 4-1 ATS surge as underdogs of more than 7 points in Big 6 Bowl/Playoff level games (Tulane)
  • Big 12 teams have gone OVER the total in their last six Big 6 Bowl/Playoff level games, allowing 44.3 PPG! (Texas Tech)
  • Favorites are on an incredible 10-1 SU and ATS surge in Big 6 Bowl/Playoff level games featuring Big Ten teams (Oregon, Ohio State, Indiana)
  • Sun Belt teams have never played in a Big 6 Bowl/Playoff-level game in FBS history (James Madison)
  • Favorites are on 21-4 SU and 18-7 ATS run in the L25 Big 6 Bowl/Playoff level games featuring SEC teams, and SEC teams have lost their last four such games SU and ATS as underdogs (Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M)

Makinen Head Coaching Experience Systems for Bowl/Playoff Games

Each year in my Motivational Factors Checklist for handicapping bowl games, I highlight the experience difference between the head coaches in each game in regards to how many bowl games they have previously coached. It has proven to be an incredibly important part of my own bowl game handicapping each year, as evidenced by a 27-16 SU & 28-14-1 ATS record for the more experienced coach last year. 

Here are the systems I employ each season regarding head coaching experience and how they pertain to this year’s CFP first round matchups and potential quarterfinal matchups. Add game counts and use them appropriately as we get into the semifinal and championship rounds as well.

System #1: Since 2015, or the last 10 bowl seasons, head coaches with an experience advantage in terms of number of bowl games coached over the opponent have gone 203-156 SU & 201-155-4 ATS (56.5%)! Note that these coaches were 27-16 SU & 28-14-1 ATS last season.

These are the CFP first round and potential quarterfinal matchups for 2025-26, and the number of bowl games experience for each coach. 

CFP First Round games

(291) JAMES MADISON at (292) OREGON
James Madison – BOB CHESNEY (1) vs. Oregon – Dan Lanning (3): Edge – Oregon by 2

(293) TULANE at (294) OLE MISS
Tulane – JON SUMRALL (2) vs. Ole Miss – PETE GOLDING (0): Edge – TULANE by 2

(295) ALABAMA at (296) OKLAHOMA
Alabama – KALEN DEBOER (4) vs. Oklahoma – BRENT VENABLES (3): Edge – ALABAMA by 1

(297) MIAMI (FL) at (298) TEXAS A&M
Miami (FL) – MARIO CRISTOBAL (8) vs. Texas A&M – MIKE ELKO (2): Edge – MIAMI (FL) by 6

CFP Quarterfinal potential matchups

(257) MIAMI/TEXAS A&M vs. (258) OHIO STATE
Miami – MARIO CRISTOBAL (9)/Texas A&M – MIKE ELKO (3): vs. Ohio State – RYAN DAY (10): Edge – OHIO STATE by at least 1

(259) JAMES MADISON/OREGON vs. (260) TEXAS TECH
James Madison BOB CHESNEY (2)/Oregon DAN LANNING (4) vs. Texas Tech – JOEY MCGUIRE (3): Edge – OREGON vs. Texas Tech (1), TEXAS TECH vs. James Madison (1)

(261) ALABAMA/OKLAHOMA vs. (262) INDIANA
Alabama – KALEN DEBOER (5)/Oklahoma – BRENT VENABLES (4): vs. Indiana – CURT CIGNETTI (1): Edge – ALABAMA/OKLAHOMA winner

(263) TULANE/OLE MISS vs. (264) GEORGIA
Tulane – JON SUMRALL (3)/Ole Miss – PETE GOLDING (1) vs. Georgia – KIRBY SMART (12): Edge – GEORGIA by at least 9

System #2: Digging further on the general experience difference, in bowl games since 2016 that have a difference of at least 10 bowl games coached between the opposing head coaches, the more experienced one is 44-27 SU and 45-25-1 ATS (64.3%). This angle was 3-3 SU and 4-2 ATS last season. Looking at this year’s playoff lineup, there is one potential quarterfinal matchup that COULD apply:

(263) OLE MISS vs. (264) GEORGIA
Ole Miss – PETE GOLDING PETE (1) vs. Georgia – KIRBY SMART (12): Edge – GEORGIA by 11

System #3: First-time bowl game head coaches have really struggled over the last eight seasons, going 46-64 SU & 45-63-1 ATS (41.7%) vs. non-first-year coaches! They were 8-9 SU & 8-8-1 ATS last year. There is one CFP First Round Playoff game fitting the bill:

(293) TULANE at (294) OLE MISS
Tulane – JON SUMRALL (2) vs. Ole Miss – PETE GOLDING (0): Edge – TULANE by 2

System #4: More on rookie head coaches: when matched up against an opposing coach who has been in at least 10 bowl games, the rookie record over the last eight years slips to an abysmal 9-20 SU & 6-23 ATS (20.7%)!

NO CFP GAMES WILL QUALIFY – watch for my full bowl analysis to get the full bowl lineup qualifying list

System #5: Finally, it is in games that are expected to be tight that the coaching difference really stands out, as first-time bowl coaches are just 19-31 SU & 16-31-3 ATS (34%) over the last 10 seasons in games with lines in the +4.5 to -4.5 range. 

AGAIN, NO CFP GAMES WILL QUALIFY – there will be other bowl games that apply, however – stay tuned

VIEW MY EFFECTIVE YARDS PER PLAY CFP BRACKET HERE

VIEW MY EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS CFP BRACKET HERE

VIEW MY GAME GRADE FORECAST CFP BRACKET HERE

VIEW MY POWER RATING CFP BRACKET HERE

VIEW MY BETTOR RATINGS CFP BRACKET HERE

Download the College Football Playoff Betting Guide to view all of my projection brackets.

Previous articleNHL Predictions: Expert Picks on Thursday, December 18
Next articleCollege Football Team Bowl History Betting Trends
Steve Makinen
Steve Makinen
As one of the original founders of StatFox, Steve Makinen has been in the business of sports betting and data analysis for almost 25 years now. In his time in the industry, Steve has worked in a variety of capacities on both sides of the betting counter, from his early days of developing the StatFox business, to almost a decade of oddsmaking consulting for one of the world's leading sportsbooks, to his last seven years as Point Spread Weekly and Analytics Director with VSiN. Steve has always believed that number crunching and handicapping through foundational trends and systems is the secret to success and he shares this data with VSiN readers on a daily basis for all of the major sports.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR