***Top College Football Betting Resources***
*It's the VSiN Black Friday Special. Take advantage of the largest savings of the year by upgrading to VSiN Pro. For a limited time, you can secure Pro access until May 1st for only $60.*
- NCAAF Expert Picks
- NCAAF Betting Hub
- NCAAF 2024 Week-By-Week Schedule
- Parlay Calculator
- NCAAF Betting Splits
- NCAAF Betting Odds
VSiN Analytics College Football Report for Week 14
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 14. 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
VSiN.com’s Betting Splits pages are among our most touted features and a fantastic resource for bettors. We have built these pages using the data DraftKings provides to us detailing the breakdowns of the money and ticket splits for point spreads, moneylines and totals. In an article published in the 2023 College Football Betting Guide, Makinen outlined 13 systematic strategies for successfully using the DK Betting Splits Data that developed in the ’22 season. Here are the systems and qualifying plays for this week’s games. 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.
Here are the DK Betting Splits College Football Systems and their updated performance records (as of Nov. 6):
CFB DK Betting Splits system #1: Going back to the start of the 2022 season through Saturday, Nov. 6, when 80% or more of the HANDLE was on a particular side of an ATS wager, this majority group was just 72-84 ATS (46%). This angle has matched the same 46% record in ’23 as it did in ’22. If you see the big GREEN lights on the VSiN betting splits HANDLE page 80% or higher, it is best to fade it.
System matches (FADE ALL): MIAMI OHIO, BOISE STATE, TROY
CFB DK Betting Splits system #2: When 75%+ of the number of BETS were on a particular side of an ATS wager from the start of the ’22 season to Nov. 5, this majority group was just 138-158 ATS (46.6%). Last season it was 46.5%, this year it is 46.7%, maintaining incredible consistency. Again, if you see the big GREEN lights on the VSiN betting splits # of BETS page 75% or higher, it is best to fade it.
System matches (FADE ALL): NONE
CFB DK Betting Splits system #3: When the majority of the HANDLE was on ROAD FAVORITES for an ATS wager since the start of the ’22 season, this majority group is just 134-160 ATS (45.6%). More recreational bettors love road favorites because they are usually the better team. The point spread is the great equalizer. Bettors have improved on this system in ’23 but there is still plenty of season to go.
System matches (FADE): BOISE STATE
CFB DK Betting Splits system #4: Similarly to #3 above, when the majority NUMBER of BETS was on ROAD FAVORITES for an ATS wager since the start of the ’22 season, this majority group has gone 146-157 ATS (48.2%). Again, an improvement for bettors has been seen in 2023. Still, 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): BOISE STATE
CFB DK Betting Splits system #5: When the majority of the HANDLE has been on ROAD UNDERDOGS for an ATS wager since the start of the ’22 season, this majority group has gone 130-119 ATS (52.2%). This 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 majority handle can pay off. Remember, higher handle feels less “public” than higher bet counts.
System matches (SLIGHT PLAY ALL): NEW MEXICO STATE, SMU
CFB DK Betting Splits system #6: When the majority NUMBER of BETS has backed ROAD UNDERDOGS for an ATS wager over the past season and a half, this majority group has gone 118-102 ATS (53.6%). This is even better than the handle numbers in #5 actually, and though down a bit for ’23, it suggests that following public bettors getting behind road dogs can be an actionable strategy.
System matches (PLAY ALL): APPALACHIAN STATE, SMU
CFB DK Betting Splits system #7: When the majority of NUMBER of BETS has backed a team in an ATS wager in NON-SATURDAY games, their 2022 and 2023 season record has been 110-72 (60.4%). 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 (PLAY ALL): LIBERTY, WASHINGTON
CFB 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 over the past season and a half, this majority group has gone just 235-282 ATS (43.7%), generally maintaining consistency from ’22 to ’23. 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): TEXAS, GEORGIA, TROY, MICHIGAN, FLORIDA STATE
CFB DK Betting Splits system #10: The average college football total has steadied at about 54. In games since the start of the ’22 season where the totals reached 57 or higher and odds makers thus expected them to be a little more explosive, when majority HANDLE bettors favored the UNDER, they have been relatively sharp, going 49-34 (59%). This is pretty rare, as it occurred in only 83 of 1321 games.
System matches (PLAY UNDER ALL): OREGON-WASHINGTON, BOISE STATE-UNLV
CFB DK Betting Splits system #11: Since the start of the ’22 season, on games with totals of 45 or lower, 70%+ super majority HANDLE bettors siding with the UNDER have gone 24-10 (70.6%). Because not many public bettors embrace betting UNDERs, this doesn’t produce a lot of plays, but the super handle majority are sharp.
System matches (PLAY UNDER): MIAMI OHIO-TOLEDO
CFB DK Betting Splits system #12: Since the start of the ’22 season, on games with totals of 45 or lower, 75%+ super majority number of BETS bettors bucking the low total and siding with the OVER have gone 43-25 (63.2%). This system has actually gone up in win percentage this season. Again, not a ton of plays here, but the more public option of number of BETS has been pretty good when going against the grain.
System matches (PLAY OVER): MICHIGAN-IOWA
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.
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 44-27 ATS (62%).
System match: PLAY MIAMI OHIO (+7.5 vs Toledo), PLAY LOUISVILLE (+2.5 vs Florida State), PLAY IOWA (+23 vs Michigan)
Key stats of the team seeking revenge matter
Better defensive teams are more successful in exacting revenge than prolific offenses. Since the start of the 2016 season, teams allowing 24 ppg or less have gone 597-535 ATS (52.7%) as compared to those scoring 35 ppg or more, 354-383 ATS (48%).
System match (GOOD DEFENSIVE TEAMS ALLOWING <= 24 PPG AND ALLOWING LESS PPG THAN OPPONENT): OREGON, NEW MEXICO STATE, TEXAS, MIAMI OHIO, SMU, TROY
College Football Systems based on 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
In games featuring two ranked teams since 2017, HOME TEAMS are 170-82 SU and 145-99-8 ATS (59.4%).
System match: PLAY TULANE (-5.5 vs SMU)
Digging deeper into that data, you will find that when the home team has been ranked better, those teams have gone 102-17 SU and 75-40-4 ATS (65.2%).
System match: PLAY TULANE (-5.5 vs SMU)
Adding another point spread wrinkle to the last angle, when better-ranked home teams have been single-digit favorites or underdogs, they have gone 53-14 SU and 46-18-3 ATS (71.9%) since ’17.
System match: PLAY TULANE (-5.5 vs SMU)
CFB AP Poll Rankings System #3 — Home ranked teams vs. non-ranked visitors
In games Week 12 or later in the season, there has been a huge discrepancy in the performance of RANKED HOME TEAMS against non-ranked visitors at the 12-point favorite line mark. As favorites of 12 points or more, they have gone 97-12 SU but just 43-60-2 ATS (41.7%), but at any other line, including underdog, they are 34-6 SU and 26-14 ATS (65%) since ’17.
System match: PLAY LIBERTY (-10 vs NMSU)
Extreme-stat next-game CFB betting systems
Conference wins while struggling offensively are momentum-builders
Over the last decade, teams that won a conference game despite gaining less than 250 yards of offense have used that victory to build momentum, going 73-43 ATS (62.9%) in the follow-up contest.
System match: PLAY MIAMI OHIO (+7.5 vs Toledo)
This week’s College Football Strength Ratings
The following are taken from today’s MAKINEN WEEKLY RATINGS page under the NFL tab on VSiN.com. Listed by team, current line, and difference between rating and current line (in parentheses).
This week’s Top 7 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen POWER RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. SMU +5.5 (+8.0), 2. ALABAMA +6 (+3.1), 3. APPALACHIAN STATE +6.5 (+2.1), 4. UNLV +2.5 (+1.7), 5. MIAMI OHIO +7.5 (+1.5), 6. WASHINGTON +9.5 (+0.7), 7. IOWA +23 (+0.6)
This week’s Top 3 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen POWER RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1 (tie). LIBERTY -10 (+2.0) and FLORIDA STATE -2.5 (+2.0), 3. TEXAS -15 (+1.2)
This week’s Top 6 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. SMU +5.5 (+5.5), 2. UNLV +2.5 (+4.0), 3. OKLAHOMA STATE +15 (+3.6), 4. ALABAMA +6 (+2.9), 5. MIAMI OHIO +7.5 (+2.2), 6. IOWA +23 (+1.7)
This week’s Top 4 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. LIBERTY -10 (+3.5), 2. FLORIDA STATE -2.5 (+1.8), 3. OREGON -9.5 (+1.3), 4. TROY -6.5 (+0.5)
This week’s Top 4 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING OVER according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1 (tie). MIAMI OHIO-TOLEDO OVER 44 (+4.4) and SMU-TULANE OVER 48 (+4.4), 3. LOUISVILLE-FLORIDA STATE OVER 48.5 (+2.4), 4. MICHIGAN-IOWA OVER 35.5 (+0.6)
This week’s Top 6 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING UNDER according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. OREGON-WASHINGTON UNDER 66.5 (-3.8), 2. OKLAHOMA STATE-TEXAS UNDER 55.5 (-0.8), 3 (tie). GEORGIA-ALABAMA UNDER 54.5 (-0.4) and APPALACHIAN STATE-TROY UNDER 52.5 (-0.4), 5. NEW MEXICO STATE-LIBERTY UNDER 54.5 (-0.3), 6. BOISE STATE-UNLV UNDER 58.5 (-0.1)
This week’s Top 6 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. SMU +5.5 (+6.4), 2. ALABAMA +6 (+4.2), 3. OKLAHOMA STATE +15 (+3.3), 4 (tie). UNLV +2.5 (+1.6) and WASHINGTON +9.5 (+1.6), 6. LOUISVILLE +2.5 (+0.9)
This week’s Top 4 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. LIBERTY -10 (+5.7), 2. TROY -6.5 (+4.9), 3. MICHIGAN -23 (+4.1), 4. TOLEDO -7.5 (+2.9)
This week’s Top 6 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING OVER according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. SMU-TULANE OVER 48 (+8.0), 2. OKLAHOMA STATE-TEXAS OVER 55.5 (+3.8), 3. NEW MEXICO STATE-LIBERTY OVER 54.5 (+3.4), 4. LOUISVILLE-FLORIDA STATE OVER 48.5 (+1.2), 5. APPALACHIAN STATE-TROY OVER 52.5 (+0.5), 6. MIAMI OHIO-TOLEDO OVER 44 (+0.1)
This week’s Top 4 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING UNDER according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. MICHIGAN-IOWA UNDER 35.5 (-3.5), 2. GEORGIA-ALABAMA UNDER 54.5 (-1.3), 3. OREGON-WASHINGTON UNDER 66.5 (-1.1), 4. BOISE STATE-UNLV UNDER 58.5 (-0.6)
Top College Football Team Situational Trends
These are some of the top situational trends that have developed with teams in recent years of action:
* FLORIDA STATE is 9-17 (34.6%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’19
* FLORIDA STATE is 7-16 (30.4%) ATS in Conference games since ’21
System match: FADE FLORIDA STATE (-2.5 vs Louisville)
* GEORGIA is 20-8 (71.4%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’20
System match: PLAY GEORGIA (-6 vs Alabama)
* TULANE is 40-20 (66.7%) ATS as Favorite since ’14
System match: PLAY TULANE (-5.5 vs SMU)
Top College Football Head-to-Head Series Trends
These are the top head-to-head series trends between teams from recent years’ action:
OKLAHOMA STATE vs. TEXAS
* UNDERDOGS are on a 6-0 ATS run in the series
System match: PLAY OKLAHOMA STATE +15
GEORGIA vs ALABAMA
* UNDERDOGS are on a 4-1 ATS run in neutral-site series, also OVER is 9-2 in last 11 meetings
System match: PLAY ALABAMA +6, PLAY OVER the total
MICHIGAN vs. IOWA
* MICHIGAN is on a 5-1 ATS run against IOWA
System match: PLAY MICHIGAN -23
Conference Championship Game Betting Systems
In looking back at all of the conference championship game logs since their inception in ’92, we were able to come up with the following four betting systems that have developed:
Group of 5 conference title game neutral-field dogs are 11-14 SU but 17-7-1 ATS (70.8%) in their last 25 tries, including 14-4-1 ATS on lines of 3 points or more.
System match: PLAY MIAMI OHIO ATS
Power 5 conference title game neutral field favorites are on a 24-4 SU and 19-9 ATS (67.9%) run.
System matches (PLAY ALL): OREGON, TEXAS, GEORGIA, FLORIDA STATE, MICHIGAN
Conference title game totals of less than 50 have gone OVER at a 23-8 (74.2%) rate since ’03.
System matches (PLAY OVER ALL): MIAMI OHIO-TOLEDO, SMU-TULANE, LOUISVILLE-FLORIDA STATE, MICHIGAN-IOWA
Conference title game totals of 64 or higher have gone UNDER at a 20-11-1 (64.5%) rate since ’04.
System match: PLAY UNDER in OREGON-WASHINGTON (o/u at 66.5)
