VSiN Analytics College Football Report for Week 5
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 5. 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 (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.
College Football Betting Splits | College Football Odds
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): LOUISVILLE, AKRON, UTAH STATE, PENN STATE, SYRACUSE, BOSTON COLLEGE, MIAMI OHIO, GEORGIA, UCF, MARSHALL, MARYLAND, USF, HOUSTON, UMASS, HAWAII, MISSOURI, OREGON, GEORGIA SOUTHERN, SMU, APPALACHIAN STATE, PITTSBURGH, ALABAMA, WASHINGTON, FRESNO 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 # of BETS page 75% or higher, it was best to fade it.
System matches (FADE ALL): TULSA, JACKSONVILLE STATE, BYU, UTAH STATE, PENN STATE, JAMES MADISON, BOSTON COLLEGE, GEORGIA, GEORGIA TECH, MARYLAND, PURDUE, MICHIGAN, TOLEDO, WESTERN MICHIGAN, UMASS, MEMPHIS, MISSOURI, WYOMING, LSU, OREGON, OKLAHOMA, RICE, GEORGIA STATE, APPALACHIAN STATE, PITTSBURGH, ALABAMA, WASHINGTON, FRESNO STATE
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): JACKSONVILLE STATE, LOUISVILLE, TEXAS A&M, USC, UTAH STATE, PENN STATE, MIAMI OHIO, GEORGIA, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, LSU, OREGON, NOTRE DAME, APPALACHIAN STATE, PITTSBURGH, ALABAMA, WASHINGTON
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): JACKSONVILLE STATE, LOUISVILLE, TEXAS A&M, USC, UTAH STATE, PENN STATE, MIAMI OHIO, GEORGIA, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, LSU, OREGON, TEXAS STATE, NOTRE DAME, APPALACHIAN STATE, PITTSBURGH, ALABAMA, WASHINGTON
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 we 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 (PLAY ALL): LOUISIANA TECH, FLORIDA, UAB, SOUTH ALABAMA, ARIZONA STATE, SOUTH FLORIDA, KANSAS, HOUSTON, HAWAII, SOUTH CAROLINA
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 actually and suggests that following public bettors getting behind road dogs can be an actionable strategy.
System matches (PLAY ALL): UTAH, LOUISIANA TECH, FLORIDA, ARIZONA STATE, KANSAS, HOUSTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
DK Betting Splits system #7: When the majority of 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 (PLAY ALL): TULSA, WESTERN KENTUCKY, JACKSONVILLE STATE, LOUISVILLE, UTAH, LOUISIANA TECH, BYU
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): WESTERN KENTUCKY, JACKSONVILLE STATE, LOUISVILLE, LOUISIANA TECH, BYU, PENN STATE, USC, TEXAS A&M, UTAH STATE, SYRACUSE, AKRON, BOSTON COLLEGE, MIAMI OHIO, GEORGIA, MICHIGAN, MARYLAND, UCF, GEORGIA TECH, HOUSTON, MARSHALL, SOUTH FLORIDA, TOLEDO, MISSOURI, MEMPHIS, WYOMING, OREGON, OKLAHOMA, RICE, GEORGIA SOUTHERN, GEORGIA STATE, IOWA, SMU, AIR FORCE, ALABAMA, WASHINGTON, FRESNO STATE
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): WESTERN KENTUCKY, BYU, UAB, USC, MICHIGAN, TOLEDO, GEORGIA, RICE, NOTRE DAME, SOUTH CAROLINA, AIR FORCE
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 odds makers 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 (PLAY UNDER): MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE-WESTERN KENTUCKY, USC-COLORADO, BOISE STATE-MEMPHIS, HAWAII-UNLV, SOUTH CAROLINA-TENNESSEE, WASHINGTON-ARIZONA
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 (PLAY UNDER): PITT-VIRGINIA TECH
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 number of BETS was pretty good when going against the grain.
System matches (PLAY OVER): JACKSONVILLE STATE-SAM HOUSTON STATE, FLORIDA-KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN-NEBRASKA, SAN DIEGO STATE-AIR FORCE
DK Betting Splits system #13: On games where the HANDLE has a majority on totals and the # 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
Effective college football YPP stats reveal opportunities
The following is excerpted from a piece this week by Makinen, detailing his process for calculating Effective Yards per Play Stats in college football. The EYPP numbers take actual raw stats for a team and weigh them against both the strength of schedule played and the offensive/defensive averages of the opponents played. Using a formula to convert these EYPP numbers into equivalent power ratings, these are the 15 Week 5 games with the biggest disparities between the actual point spread and the calculated lines from each team’s Effective Yards per Play Power Rating. For more context, see the full article detailing the subject on the VSiN.com website under the college football section or under the STEVE MAKINEN author tab.
1. Actual Line: TEXAS STATE -7
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: TEXAS STATE -28.2
Difference: 21.2 — Favors: TEXAS STATE
2. (135) BAYLOR at (136) UCF
Actual Line: UCF -11
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: UCF -31.3
Difference: 20.3 — Favors: UCF
3. (113) LOUISVILLE at (114) NC STATE
Actual Line: LOUISVILLE -3
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: LOUISVILLE -21.5
Difference: 18.5 — Favors: LOUISVILLE
4. (201) LSU at (202) OLE MISS
Actual Line: OLE MISS +2.5
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: OLE MISS -14.1
Difference: 16.6 — Favors: OLE MISS
5. (131) TROY at (132) GEORGIA STATE
Actual Line: TROY +3
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: TROY -13
Difference: 16 — Favors: TROY
6. (159) LOUISIANA at (160) MINNESOTA
Actual Line: LOUISIANA +10
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: LOUISIANA -3.7
Difference: 13.7 — Favors: LOUISIANA
7. (151) BUFFALO at (152) AKRON
Actual Line: AKRON -3
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: AKRON -16.4
Difference: 13.4 — Favors: AKRON
8. (119) CINCINNATI at (120) BYU
Actual Line: CINCINNATI +3
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: CINCINNATI -10
Difference: 13 — Favors: CINCINNATI
9. (175) WASHINGTON at (176) ARIZONA
Actual Line: WASHINGTON -18
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: WASHINGTON -29.1
Difference: 11.1 — Favors: WASHINGTON
10. (103) MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE at (104) WESTERN KENTUCKY
Actual Line: MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE +7
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE -3.6
Difference: 10.6 — Favors: MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE
11. (147) SOUTH ALABAMA at (148) JAMES MADISON
Actual Line: S ALABAMA +3.5
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: SOUTH ALABAMA -6.8
Difference: 10.3 — Favors: SOUTH ALABAMA
12. (185) ALABAMA at (186) MISSISSIPPI STATE
Actual Line: MISSISSIPPI STATE +14.5
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: MISSISSIPPI STATE +4.4
Difference: 10.1 — Favors: MISSISSIPPI STATE
13. (163) MICHIGAN at (164) NEBRASKA
Actual Line: NEBRASKA +18
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: NEBRASKA +8.4
Difference: 9.6 — Favors: NEBRASKA
14. (203) MISSOURI at (204) VANDERBILT
Actual Line: MISSOURI -13
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: MISSOURI -21.8
Difference: 8.8 — Favors: MISSOURI
15. (121) PENN STATE at (122) NORTHWESTERN
Actual Line: NORTHWESTERN +25.5
Effective Yards Per Play PR Line: NORTHWESTERN +17.4
Difference: 8.1 — Favors: NORTHWESTERN
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 as having lost a game to a specific opponent in the prior or current season only.
Best and Worst College Football Revenge Teams (since ’16)
Best
* KENT STATE is 9-14 SU and 16-7 ATS (70%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: PLAY KENT STATE (+15.5 vs. MIAMI OHIO)
* CENTRAL MICHIGAN is 15-8 SU and 15-7 ATS (68.2%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: PLAY CENTRAL MICHIGAN (-7.5 vs. Eastern Michigan)
* CALIFORNIA is 15-17 SU and 20-12 ATS (62.5%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: PLAY CALIFORNIA (-12 vs. Arizona State)
Worst
* OLE MISS is 9-21 SU and 10-19 ATS (34.5%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: FADE OLE MISS (+2.5 vs. LSU)
* NEW MEXICO is 6-31 SU and 12-23 ATS (34.3%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: FADE NEW MEXICO (+14 at Wyoming)
* MASSACHUSETTS is 2-17 SU and 7-12 ATS (36.8%) in revenge mode since ’16
System match: FADE UMASS (-1 vs. Arkansas State)
College football revenge systems
Neutral field underdogs are great in revenge
1. Since the start of the 2016 season, neutral-field underdogs playing in revenge mode have gone 40-24 ATS (62.5%).
System match: PLAY ARKANSAS (+6.5 vs. Texas A&M)
Revenge teams that lost as double-digit favorites last time out
2. Teams looking to avenge outright losses where they were double-digit favorites have struggled, going just 90-108 ATS (45.5%) since 2016.
System matches: FADE TENNESSEE (-12.5 vs. South Carolina), FADE UNLV (-11 vs. Hawaii)
Key stats of the team seeking revenge matter
3. 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 575-517 ATS (52.7%) as compared with those scoring 35 PPG or more, 354-383 ATS (48%).
System matches (good defensive teams allowing <=24 PPG): NC STATE, OREGON STATE, SYRACUSE, INDIANA, TENNESSEE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA SOUTHERN, NEBRASKA, ARIZONA, NORTHERN ILLINOIS, IOWA STATE, AUBURN, OLE MISS, ARKANSAS, KANSAS, WEST VIRGINIA
Revenge is sweet against porous defensive foes
4. Teams seeking revenge against a team that is currently allowing 35 PPG or more have been very successful, going 201-152 ATS (56.9%) since 2016.
System matches: PLAY AKRON (-2.5 vs. Buffalo), PLAY MASSACHUSETTS (-1 vs. Arkansas State), PLAY TEXAS STATE (-7 at Southern Miss)
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 148-74 SU and 127-88-7 ATS (59.1%).
System matches (PLAY ALL): OREGON STATE, TEXAS, OLE MISS, DUKE
· Digging deeper into that data, you will find that when the home team has been ranked better, those teams have gone 87-16 SU and 64-36-3 ATS (64%).
System match: PLAY TEXAS
CFB AP Poll Rankings System #4
In college football games featuring TWO RANKED TEAMS with the home team being a double-digit favorite, UNDER the total boasts an impressive 33-12 (73.3%) record since the beginning of the 2017 season. When adding a qualifier of totals higher than 56 to that system, the UNDER record jumps to 20-6 (76.9%).
System match: PLAY UNDER in Kansas-Texas (o/u at 63.5)
Extreme stat next game CFB betting system
Dismal offensive performances carry over
5. College football teams that gained 100 yards or fewer in a game have not bounced back well in the next, going just 22-33 ATS (40%) in their last 55 games.
System match: FADE IOWA (-11.5 vs. Michigan State)
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 10 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen POWER RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. OLE MISS +2.5 (+4.3), 2. SOUTH ALABAMA +3 (+3.8), 3. SYRACUSE +7 (+3.7), 4. SOUTH CAROLINA +12.5 (+2.9), 5. ILLINOIS +1 (+2.6), 6. BOWLING GREEN +22 (+2.5), 7. VANDERBILT +13.5 (+2.4), 8. COASTAL CAROLINA +6.5 (+2.2), 9(tie). COLORADO +21.5 (+2.0) and SOUTHERN MISS +7 (+2.0)
This week’s Top 10 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen POWER RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. WYOMING -14 (+5.5), 2. OREGON -27 (+4.9), 3 (tie). CENTRAL MICHIGAN -7.5 (+4.4) and TOLEDO -12.5 (+4.4), 5. PENN STATE -25.5 (+3.1), 6. TULSA -3.5 (+2.9), 7. NOTRE DAME -5.5 (+2.4), 8 (tie). MARYLAND -14 (+2.3) and TEXAS -17 (+2.3), 10. WESTERN KENTUCKY -5.5 (+2.2)
This week’s Top 10 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. OLE MISS +2.5 (+11.0), 2. AUBURN +14.5 (+8.2), 3. SYRACUSE +7 (+7.8), 4. IOWA STATE +20 (+7.6), 5. SOUTH CAROLINA +12.5 (+4.9), 6. STANFORD +27 (+4.7), 7 (tie). CINCINNATI +2.5 (+4.4) and SAN DIEGO STATE +10.5 (+4.4), 9. NORTHERN ILLINOIS +12.5 (+3.4), 10. MICHIGAN STATE +11.5 (+3.3)
This week’s Top 10 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. PENN STATE -25.5 (+5.3), 2. FRESNO STATE -24.5 (+4.9), 3. APPALACHIAN STATE -13.5 (+3.6), 4 (tie). JACKSONVILLE STATE -6.5 (+3.1) and WYOMING -14 (+3.1), 6. MIAMI OHIO -15.5 (+2.7), 7. TULANE -21.5 (+2.5), 8. WESTERN KENTUCKY -5.5 (+2.2), 9. SMU -23.5 (+2.1), 10. AKRON -2.5 (+2.0)
This week’s Top 10 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING OVER according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. NEW MEXICO-WYOMING OVER 42 (+7.0), 2. HOUSTON-TEXAS TECH OVER 51.5 (+6.9), 3. SOUTH CAROLINA-TENNESSEE OVER 63.5 (+6.4), 4. LOUISIANA-MINNESOTA OVER 48.5 (+4.8), 5. UTAH STATE-UCONN OVER 51 (+4.7), 6. TROY-GEORGIA STATE OVER 51.5 (+4.5), 7. BUFFALO-AKRON OVER 55.5 (+4.4), 8. BAYLOR-UCF OVER 55 (+4.1), 9 (tie). MIAMI OHIO-KENT STATE OVER 48.5 (+3.9) and MICHIGAN STATE-IOWA OVER 36.5 (+3.9)
This week’s Top 10 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING UNDER according to the Makinen EFFECTIVE STRENGTH RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. KANSAS-TEXAS UNDER 64 (-8.6), 2. COASTAL-GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNDER 63.5 (-6.4), 3. WASHINGTON-ARIZONA UNDER 67.5 (-6.3), 4. USC-COLORADO UNDER 73.5 (-3.8), 5 (tie). JACKSONVILLE STATE-SAM HOUSTON STATE UNDER 36.5 (-2.7) and OKLAHOMA-IOWA STATE UNDER 48.5 (-2.7), 7. LSU-OLE MISS UNDER 66.5 (-2.3), 8. BOISE STATE-MEMPHIS UNDER 60 (-2.2), 9. GEORGIA-AUBURN UNDER 47 (-1.7), 10. UAB-TULANE UNDER 58.5 (-1.6)
This week’s Top 10 UNDERPRICED UNDERDOGS according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1 (tie). SAM HOUSTON STATE +6.5 (+10.2) and TROY +1.5 (+10.2), 3. SOUTHERN MISS +7 (+10.1), 4. COASTAL CAROLINA +6.5 (+8.7), 5. NC STATE +3.5 (+8.2), 6. HAWAII +11 (+7.7), 7. BAYLOR +11.5 (+6.2), 8. COLORADO +21.5 (+5.9), 9. BUFFALO +2.5 (+5.8), 10. NORTHERN ILLINOIS +12.5 (+4.9)
This week’s Top 10 UNDERPRICED FAVORITES according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. WYOMING -14 (+7.1), 2. TENNESSEE -12.5 (+6.7), 3. PENN STATE -25.5 (+6.3), 4. MINNESOTA -11 (+5.4), 5. UTEP -1 (+4.4), 6(tie). NOTRE DAME -5.5 (+4.3) and MICHIGAN -18 (+4.3), 8. NAVY -4 (+4.0), 9. WESTERN KENTUCKY -5.5 (+3.9), 10. PITTSBURGH -2.5 (+3.5)
This week’s Top 10 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING OVER according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. NOTRE DAME-DUKE OVER 52.5 (+8.2), 2. ECU-RICE OVER 46.5 (+7.3), 3. HOUSTON-TEXAS TECH OVER 51.5 (+5.7), 4. LOUISIANA-MINNESOTA OVER 48.5 (+5.5), 5. ALABAMA-MISS STATE OVER 46 (+4.9), 6. GEORGIA-AUBURN OVER 47 (+4.4), 7. NEW MEXICO-WYOMING OVER 42 (+4.3), 8 (tie). MICH-NEBRASKA OVER 40 (+4.2) and IOWA STATE-OKLAHOMA OVER 48.5 (+4.2), 10. FLORIDA-KENTUCKY OVER 44 (+3.9)
This week’s Top 10 BIGGEST TOTAL PROJECTIONS FAVORING UNDER according to the Makinen BETTORS RATINGS projections:
Ratings matches: 1. BOISE STATE-MEMPHIS UNDER 60 (-5.6), 2. TEMPLE-TULSA UNDER 55.5 (-3.4), 3. BAYLOR-UCF UNDER 55 (-3.2), 4. COASTAL-GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNDER 63.5 (-2.8), 5. LSU-OLE MISS UNDER 66.5 (-2.5), 6. ILLINOIS-PURDUE UNDER 53.5 (-2.3), 7. ARKANSAS STATE-UMASS UNDER 55.5 (-2.2), 8. MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE-WESTERN KENTUCKY UNDER 59.5 (-1.8), 9. NEVADA-FRESNO STATE UNDER 50 (-1.6), 10. HAWAII-UNLV UNDER 59 (-1.3)
Top College Football Team Situational Trends
These are some of the top situational trends that have developed with teams in recent years of action:
* AKRON is 11-26 (29.7%) ATS at Home since ’16
System match: FADE AKRON (-2.5 vs. Buffalo)
* ARIZONA STATE is 19-10 (65.5%) ATS as Underdog since ’18
System match: PLAY ARIZONA STATE (+12 at Cal)
* BOSTON COLLEGE is 18-7 (72%) ATS in Conference games since ’20
System match: PLAY BOSTON COLLEGE (-3 vs. Virginia)
* BOWLING GREEN is 10-29 (25.6%) ATS as Underdog since ’19
* BOWLING GREEN is 3-12 (20%) ATS in Non-Conference games since ’19
System match: FADE BOWLING GREEN (+22 at Georgia Tech)
* CLEMSON is 17-6 (73.9%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’20
System match: PLAY CLEMSON (-7 at Syracuse)
* DUKE is 30-11 (73.2%) ATS in Non-Conference games since ’14
System match: PLAY DUKE (+5.5 vs. Notre Dame)
* EASTERN MICHIGAN is 33-14 (70.2%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’16
System match: PLAY EASTERN MICHIGAN (+7.5 at Central Michigan)
* FRESNO STATE is 22-10 (68.8%) UNDER the total since ’21
* FRESNO STATE is 17-5 (77.3%) ATS coming off SU Win since ’21
System match: PLAY FRESNO STATE (-24.5 vs. Nevada), PLAY UNDER in Nevada-Fresno State (o/u at 50)
* GEORGIA is 18-5 (78.3%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’20
System match: PLAY GEORGIA (-14.5 at Auburn)
* IOWA STATE is 12-5 (70.6%) ATS as Underdog since ’21
System match: PLAY IOWA STATE (+20 at Oklahoma)
* JAMES MADISON is 13-5 (72.2%) ATS as Favorite since ’20
System match: PLAY JAMES MADISON (-3 vs. South Alabama)
* LSU is 20-8 (71.4%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’19
System match: PLAY LSU (-2.5 at Ole Miss)
* MISSISSIPPI STATE is 21-9 (70%) UNDER the total since ’21
* MISSISSIPPI STATE is 12-5 (70.6%) ATS at Home since ’21
System match: PLAY MISSISSIPPI STATE (+14.5 vs. Alabama), PLAY UNDER in MISSISSIPPI STATE-Alabama (o/u at 46)
* NEBRASKA is 1-8 (11.1%) ATS at Home in its last 9
System match: FADE NEBRASKA (+17.5 vs. Michigan)
* NEW MEXICO is 13-33 (28.3%) ATS in Conference games since ’17
System match: FADE NEW MEXICO (+14.5 at Wyoming)
* OLE MISS is 3-13 (18.8%) ATS in Conference games since ’21
System match: FADE OLE MISS (+2.5 vs. LSU)
* PENN STATE is 26-9 (74.3%) ATS coming off SU Win since ’19
System match: PLAY PENN STATE (-25.5 at Northwestern)
* SAM HOUSTON STATE is 10-1 (90.9%) ATS as Underdog since ’17
System match: PLAY SAM HOUSTON STATE (+6.5 vs. Jax State)
* SAN DIEGO STATE is 36-15 (70.6%) UNDER the total since ’19
System match: PLAY UNDER in SAN DIEGO STATE-AIR FORCE (o/u at 43.5)
* TEMPLE is 12-3 (80%) ATS coming off SU Loss since ’20
System match: PLAY TEMPLE (+3.5 at Tulsa)
* TROY is 11-3 (78.6%) ATS in Road/Neutral games since ’21
System match: PLAY TROY (+1.5 at Georgia State)
* TULANE is 37-15 (71.2%) ATS as Favorite since ’14
System match: PLAY TULANE (-21 vs. UAB)
* UTEP is 4-15 (21.1%) ATS at Home since ’20
System match: FADE UTEP (-1 vs. LA Tech)
* WESTERN KENTUCKY is 6-17 (26.1%) ATS as Favorite since ’19
System match: FADE WESTERN KENTUCKY (-5.5 vs. Middle Tennessee State)
Top College Football Head-to-Head Series Trends
These are the top head-to-head series trends between teams from recent years’ action:
GEORGIA at AUBURN
* GEORGIA is on a 9-1 ATS run versus Auburn including 6-0 SU and ATS in last 6
System match: PLAY GEORGIA -14.5
ALABAMA at MISSISSIPPI STATE
* UNDER the total is 20-5 in ALABAMA-MISSISSIPPI STATE series since ’98, including 11-1 in Starkville
System match: PLAY UNDER (o/u at 46)
PITTSBURGH at VIRGINIA TECH
* PITTSBURGH is on a 13-2 ATS run vs. Virginia Tech
System match: PLAY PITTSBURGH -2.5
NEVADA at FRESNO STATE
* ROAD TEAMS are on a 10-2 ATS surge in Nevada-Fresno State series
System match: PLAY NEVADA +24.5
LSU at OLE MISS
* HOME TEAMS are on a 9-1 ATS run in LSU-Ole Miss rivalry
System match: PLAY OLE MISS +2.5
MISSOURI at VANDERBILT
* UNDER the total is 8-1 in last 9 of Missouri-Vanderbilt series
System match: PLAY UNDER (o/u at 56.5)
SOUTH CAROLINA at TENNESSEE
* UNDERDOGS are 6-5 SU and 9-1-1 ATS in last 11 of South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry
System match: PLAY SOUTH CAROLINA +12.5
HAWAII at UNLV
* The last 6 games of the Hawaii-UNLV series went UNDER the total
System match: PLAY UNDER (o/u at 59)
