VSiN Analytics College Football Report for Week 10

By
VSiN Staff
-
943
 

 

 

***Top College Football Betting Resources***

*Join thousands of other sports bettors and unlock access to picks, public betting splits data, & the VSiN live video broadcast by upgrading to VSiN Pro. Grab your first month for less than $10.*

VSiN Analytics College Football Report for Week 10

The following is a collection of analytical data, betting systems and strength ratings featured on VSiN and qualified for the college football games of WEEK 10. This report is meant to emulate the process that Steve Makinen and other members of the VSiN Analytics team undergo when handicapping each week’s college football board.

 

Strategies using CFB DraftKings Betting Splits data

One of the most touted features on the VSiN.com website, and a feature that we believe to be a fantastic resource for bettors, is the Betting Splits pages. These are the pages that we have built utilizing the data that DraftKings so graciously provides to us detailing the breakdowns of the money & ticket splits for point spreads, money lines, and totals. In an article published in the 2023 College Football Betting Guide, Steve Makinen outlined 13 different systematic strategies for successfully using the DK Betting Splits Data that developed in the 2022 season. Here are the systems and qualifying plays for this week’s games (records are shown heading into the 2023 season). These can and will change, so continue to track and qualify the systems up until kickoff for best usage. There will be an updated betting splits article on Saturday morning.

DK Betting Splits system #1: When 80% or more of the handle was on a particular side of an ATS wager, this majority group was just 40-47 ATS (46%). In other words, if you saw the big green lights on the VSiN betting splits handle page 80% or higher, it was best to fade it.

System Matches (FADE ALL): NORTHERN ILLINOIS, COLORADO STATE, NOTRE DAME, FLORIDA, NEBRASKA, MEMPHIS, ILLINOIS, ULM, TULSA, LA TECH, IOWA STATE, UTAH STATE, MICHIGAN, SMU, WASHINGTON, BOISE STATE

 

DK Betting Splits system #2: When 75%+ of the number of bets were on a particular side of an ATS wager, this majority group was just 66-76 ATS (46.5%). Again, if you see the big green lights on the VSiN betting splits number of bets page 75% or higher, it was best to fade it.

System Matches (FADE ALL): TROY, NOTRE DAME, FLORIDA, NEBRASKA, OLE MISS, OHIO STATE, NAVY, FLORIDA ATLANTIC, UCF, TULANE, LOUISVILLE, PENN STATE, FLORIDA STATE, JAMES MADISON, COASTAL CAROLINA, AUBURN, OREGON, UTAH STATE, MICHIGAN, KENTUCKY, SMU, WASHINGTON

 

DK Betting Splits system #3: When the majority of the handle was on road favorites for an ATS wager, this majority group was just 58-85 ATS (40.6%). More recreational bettors love road favorites because they are usually the better team. The point spread is the great equalizer.

System Matches: (FADE ALL) ILLINOIS, NOTRE DAME, NEBRASKA, OHIO STATE, LA LAFAYETTE, TX-SAN ANTONIO, UCF, TULANE, PENN STATE, IOWA, FLORIDA STATE, AUBURN, UTAH STATE, GA SOUTHERN, KENTUCKY, SMU, WASHINGTON, MIAMI (FL), OREGON STATE

 

DK Betting Splits system #4: Similarly to #3 above, when the majority number of bets was on road favorites for an ATS wager, this majority group was just 59-75 ATS (44.0%). Bet volume usually covers more public action, and again, recreational bettors love road favorites but don’t typically fare well long term.

System Matches: (FADE ALL) N ILLINOIS, NOTRE DAME, WISCONSIN, NEBRASKA, OHIO STATE, NAVY, LA LAFAYETTE, FLA ATLANTIC, UCF, TULANE, PENN STATE, IOWA, OKLAHOMA, FLORIDA STATE, JAMES MADISON, COASTAL CAROLINA, AUBURN, UNLV, UTAH ST, GA SOUTHERN, KENTUCKY, SMU, WASHINGTON, MIAMI (FL), UCLA

 

DK Betting Splits system #5: When the majority of the handle was on road underdogs for an ATS wager, this majority group was 100-82 ATS (54.9%). Now, 54.9% is less than the usual systems I like to present to readers, but this is a nice advantage against the usual majority win rates, and goes to show that being on the “smart” side of the majority handle can pay off. Remember, a higher handle feels less “public” than higher bet counts.

System Matches: BUFFALO, KENT STATE, TCU, COLORADO STATE, ARIZONA STATE, ARMY, HOUSTON, MISSOURI, ILLINOIS, HAWAII, LA MONROE, MIDDLE TENN STATE, MARSHALL, LOUISIANA TECH, LSU, STANFORD, BOISE STATE

 

DK Betting Splits system #6: When the majority number of bets was on road underdogs for an ATS wager, this majority group was 98-75 ATS (56.6%). This is even better than the handle numbers in #5, and it suggests that following public bettors getting behind road dogs can be an actionable strategy.

System Matches: JACKSONVILLE STATE, MARSHALL, LOUISIANA TECH, KANSAS, BYU, STANFORD, BOISE STATE

 

DK Betting Splits system #7: When the majority of the number of bets backed a team in an ATS wager in non-Saturday games, their 2022 season record was 72-46 (61%)! This goes to show that public bettors can be better performers with fewer games to choose from. A lot of times, their mistake proves to be taking too many games on a Saturday.

System Matches: N ILLINOIS, TOLEDO, BOWLING GREEN, AKRON, TEXAS TECH, DUKE, TROY, SYRACUSE, WYOMING

 

DK Betting Splits system #8: When the majority of the handle backed the team with more season wins in an FBS vs. FBS contest for an ATS wager, this majority group was just 100-131 ATS (43.3%). More than not, bettors like to back the “better team” in a matchup, regardless of what the point spread indicates. Again, the point spread is the eternal equalizer.

System Matches: (FADE ALL) AUBURN, DUKE, FLORIDA, FLORIDA STATE, GA SOUTHERN, HOUSTON, IOWA, KENTUCKY, LA MONROE, LA LAFAYETTE, LOUISVILLE, MEMPHIS, MIAMI (FL), MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, NOTRE DAME, OHIO STATE, OLE MISS, OREGON, OREGON ST, PENN STATE, SMU, TCU, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, TROY, TULANE, TULSA, UCF, WASHINGTON

 

DK Betting Splits system #9: When the majority of the handle backed a team in an FBS vs. FBS contest for an ATS wager, but the line moved towards the opposite team, this majority group was just 38-49 ATS (43.7%). This can be a tricky one to avoid, as it can be referred to as a trap in booking circles. The theory is that the more money a team gets on it, the more likely the line moves toward that team. This is the opposite scenario, and usually, the public loses.

System Matches: (FADE ALL) AUBURN, IOWA, KENT STATE, LOUISVILLE, MICHIGAN, OLE MISS, OREGON STATE, SYRACUSE, TROY, TULANE, UCF, WASHINGTON

 

DK Betting Splits system #10: The average college football total last year was 54.5. In games where the totals reached 57 or higher and oddsmakers thus expected them to be a little more explosive, when majority handle bettors favored the Under, they were relatively sharp, going 35-21 (62.5%). This is pretty rare, as it occurred in only 56 of 776 games.

System Matches: UNDER the total in LA LAFAYETTE-ARKANSAS STATE, FLA ATLANTIC-UAB, HOUSTON-BAYLOR, CALIFORNIA-OREGON, UNLV-NEW MEXICO, GA SOUTHERN-TEXAS STATE, LSU-ALABAMA, STANFORD-WASHINGTON STATE, OREGON STATE-COLORADO

 

DK Betting Splits system #11: On games with totals of 45 or lower, 70%+ super majority handle bettors siding with the Under were 15-8 (65.2%). Because not many public bettors embrace betting Unders, this didn’t produce a lot of plays, but the super handle majority were sharp.

System Matches: UNDER the total in KENT STATE-AKRON, ARMY-AIR FORCE, IOWA-NORTHWESTERN

 

DK Betting Splits system #12: On games with totals of 45 or lower, 75%+ super majority number of bets bettors bucking the low total and siding with the Over were 22-13 (62.9%). Again, not a ton of plays here, but the more public option of the number of bets was pretty good when going against the grain.

System Matches: OVER the total in BALL STATE-BOWLING GREEN, COLORADO STATE-WYOMING, NEBRASKA-MICHIGAN STATE, OHIO STATE-RUTGERS, ARIZONA STATE-UTAH,

 

DK Betting Splits system #13: On games where the handle has a majority on totals and the number of bets has the opposite majority, the majority handle plays went 112-93 (54.6%). This could be described as more sharp action being displayed by the majority handle.

System Matches:

PLAY UNDER when opposite majorities and HANDLE favors UNDER

PLAY OVER when opposite majorities and HANDLE favors OVER

 

College Football Revenge Handicapping

The following are methodologies for handicapping revenge situations in college football, including the best and worst teams in revenge mode and the best betting systems uncovered. This material was taken from an article published in late August. Revenge is defined by having lost a game to a specific opponent in the prior or current season only.

 

Best and Worst College Football Revenge Teams (since 2016)

Best

* COASTAL CAROLINA is 10-8 SU and 13-5 ATS (72%) in revenge mode since 2016

System Match: PLAY COASTAL CAROLINA (-1.5 at Old Dominion)

 

* CALIFORNIA is 16-19 SU and 21-14 ATS (60%) in revenge mode since 2016

System Match: PLAY CALIFORNIA ATS (+24 at Oregon)

 

Worst

* NEW MEXICO is 6-32 SU and 13-23 ATS (36.1%) in revenge mode since 2016

System Match: FADE NEW MEXICO (+10 vs UNLV)

 

* CINCINNATI is 8-11 SU and 5-14 ATS (26%) in revenge mode since 2016

System Match: FADE CINCINNATI (+4 vs UCF)

 

* APPALACHIAN STATE is 3-5 SU and 2-6 ATS (25%) in revenge mode since 2016

System Match: FADE APPALACHIAN STATE (-4 vs Marshall)

 

 

College football revenge systems

 

Neutral field underdogs are great in revenge

Since the start of the 2016 season, neutral-field underdogs playing in revenge mode have gone 41-26 ATS (61.2%).

System Match: PLAY NORTHWESTERN (+5 vs. Iowa), PLAY ARMY (+18.5 vs. Air Force)

 

Revenge teams that lost as double-digit favorites last time out

Teams looking to avenge outright losses where they were double-digit favorites have struggled, going just 94-112 ATS (45.6%) since 2016.

System Matches: FADE ALABAMA (-3 vs. LSU), FADE COASTAL CAROLINA (-1.5 at Old Dominion), FADE UCLA (-2.5 at Arizona)

 

Current won-lost records are a good indicator of revenge chances

College football teams seeking revenge and having at least four more wins on the season than their opponent have been very successful, going 84-14 SU and 65-29-4 ATS (69.1%) since 2016.

System Match: PLAY TOLEDO (-15 vs Buffalo)

 

Key stats of the team seeking revenge matter

Better defensive teams are more successful in exacting revenge than prolific offense. Since the start of the 2016 season, teams allowing 24 PPG or less have gone 591-528 ATS (52.8%) as compared to those scoring 35 PPG or more, 354-383 ATS (48%).

System Matches (GOOD DEFENSIVE TEAMS ALLOWING <= 24 PPG): TOLEDO, NORTHERN ILLINOIS, SOUTH ALABAMA, ALABAMA, RUTGERS, COASTAL CAROLINA, CLEMSON, MISSOURI, MARYLAND, TEXAS A&M, MINNESOTA, IOWA STATE, UCLA, KANSAS STATE

 

Revenge is sweet against porous defensive foes

Teams seeking revenge against a team that is currently allowing 35 PPG or more have been very successful, going 203-155 ATS (56.7%) since 2016. System Matches: PLAY LA-MONROE (+2.5 at Southern Miss), PLAY NEVADA (-3.5 vs Hawaii)

 

College Football Systems Based Upon AP Poll Rankings

The following college football betting systems take into account whether or not teams in a non-neutral field game are ranked in the AP poll.

 

CFB AP Poll Rankings System #1 – Games featuring two ranked teams

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR